COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
	That Mr John Randall be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr Simon Burns be added to the Committee.—[ Mr. Nicholas Brown .]

Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Antisocial Behaviour

Mark Lancaster: If she will undertake a review of the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour interventions.

Tony McNulty: There will be a review of the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour interventions and we think that the contract will be let some time in September or October this year. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been extensive studies from a range of sources on the efficacy of antisocial behaviour interventions, and we have always sought to adjust the practice of implementing them accordingly.

Mark Lancaster: According to Milton Keynes community safety partnership's latest survey, a massive 72 per cent. of respondents listed antisocial behaviour as their principal concern, and only two weeks ago, a former Labour councillor was convicted of punching a young mother in the face outside a school in Milton Keynes. As actions speak louder than words, what will the Minister do to reassure my constituents that he is serious about tackling antisocial behaviour in Milton Keynes?

Tony McNulty: First, I would ask them to find another MP, rather than one who treats a serious matter in such a cheap and partisan fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) is more than aware of the antisocial behaviour difficulties with which the partnership in Milton Keynes is dealing and I would venture to say that she has done a tad more than the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) to try to resolve those matters—good luck to her.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the success of antisocial behaviour orders in assisting communities to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour. May I draw one aspect of the issue to his attention so that he is aware of it when he carries out the review? Police officers in my area are concerned that when somebody breaches an ASBO and they are taken back to the magistrates court, the matter is not treated severely enough, given that it is a severe breach of a court agreement. Will my hon. Friend take that into consideration when he carries out the review?

Tony McNulty: Many people up and down the country have expressed that concern relating to communities. I will seek to ensure that the subject of the efficacy and effectiveness of the local magistracy when dealing with repeat breaches of antisocial behaviour interventions is part of the broader review that we will take forward towards the end of the year; I agree with my hon. Friend on that.

Barbara Keeley: May I tell my hon. Friend that we have had considerable success with antisocial behaviour interventions in Salford? In fact, there have been almost 900 different types of interventions and 40 antisocial behaviour orders. That has resulted in crime falling by 13 per cent. overall; in particular, criminal damage has been reduced. However, we do have some way to go. On the review, does my hon. Friend agree that councillors working with the safer neighbourhood teams will ensure success? That is what has happened in Salford to make our antisocial behaviour interventions so successful.

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Anyone who is fair and consensual, as I am, would acknowledge that Liberal Democrat and Conservative councils across the country, and the odd recalcitrant Labour council, are finally getting on board in dealing with antisocial behaviour—the police have certainly been on board for a long time. My hon. Friend is right: the system is at its most powerful when all those local partnerships come together and draw up a broader antisocial behaviour strategy for the entire region, rather than just focusing on recalcitrant individuals.

Immigration Review

Bob Spink: What assessment she has made of progress on the implementation of her new Department's immigration review; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: I have had several discussions with the chief executive of the Border and Immigration Agency since my appointment. Progress has already been made in meeting our key priorities, which are to strengthen our borders, to fast track asylum decisions, to encourage and enforce compliance with our immigration laws and to boost Britain's economy through managed migration. Agency status for the BIA, including a new regional structure, is encouraging greater focus on delivery, flexibility and speed of decision making.

Bob Spink: I welcome the Home Secretary to her new position and wish her good luck in it, and I thank her for her response. We have been impotent or unwilling to deport immigrants who are undesirable or who may pose a security threat to us. In light of the recent terrorist attacks and the increased threat level, will she adopt a tougher, more proactive policy on deporting "doctors of death", or Muslim clerics who seek to radicalise young men in Britain?

Jacqui Smith: Public protection and security has to be at the heart of our approach to immigration policy. The hon. Gentleman slightly underestimates the action that has already been taken. We have signed memorandums of understanding, which include assurances, with Jordan, Libya and Lebanon, and we have agreements with Algeria; they will enable us to deport suspects to those states. Nine people have been deported on national security grounds in the past two years, and 124 people from the UK have been excluded on national security grounds in the same period. We take the threat very seriously. We will do what is necessary and, by taking action and by making changes to the law when necessary, we will ensure that we can continue to do it.

Neil Gerrard: My right hon. Friend will recall that the review identified what have become known as legacy cases—the 400,000 to 500,000 cases that were supposed to be cleared within up to five years. However, will she look at how the issue is being handled, because people applying for extensions of leave and humanitarian protection, rather than making fresh claims, are simply getting a standard letter saying, "It will be decided within five years, " which is very unhelpful both to the constituent and to those of us who deal with their cases.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. We have made a commitment to deal with all those cases—roughly 450,000—in the next five years. My predecessor set out the priority order on which that would be done, starting with harm first. Obviously, I will want to look carefully at the progress that is being made on that programme and I will take into consideration points made by my hon. Friend. We expect to be able to report on progress on that work later this year.

Peter Lilley: Given that the Health Department claims that we have a uniquely ethical policy of not recruiting doctors and nurses from Africa, will the Home Secretary, in her review, examine why the Home Office has issued more than 60,000 work permits to nurses and doctors from Africa since 2000, quite apart from the many issued to doctors and nurses from Asia? Although the issue was recently highlighted by the appalling fact that a handful of these people were apparently involved in terrorism, is it not also appalling that we are asset-stripping Africa of the resources that it so desperately needs to cure its own people?

Jacqui Smith: Thanks to the considerable investment that the Government have put into training medical staff and ensuring recruitment into our NHS, it is no longer necessary—certainly with respect to consultants—to recruit from abroad. However, where people would like to come and contribute to the NHS—and, incidentally, in many cases, to take back skills that they have learned here to their own countries—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want us to prevent that from happening. The related issue of the concern about security checks on those who come to work in the NHS is, of course, the subject of the review that the Prime Minister has asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Admiral Sir Alan West, to undertake, and we will look carefully at whether there is more we need to do to tighten the security arrangements in those very specific circumstances.

Jim Sheridan: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, as part of the immigration review, she could reflect on the impact that migrant workers are having on indigenous workers in all our communities? There is clear evidence that unscrupulous employers are bringing these vulnerable workers into this country and exploiting the current employment laws. Will my right hon. Friend speak to her colleagues in the relevant Department to close those loopholes?

Jacqui Smith: It is in order to make sure that the economy and the British people benefit from migration, but also to manage the risks and allow people to come to this country on the basis of their skills and the contributions that they can make, that we have set up the migration advisory committee, which will meet for the first time in October to look precisely at those issues. It is also—this relates particularly to some of the areas that my hon. Friend was concerned about—why we are increasing our enforcement capacity to tackle illegal working where it is happening and, more broadly across Government, looking at how we can ensure that the minimum employment standards that we expect in this country are taken into consideration and enforced, regardless of where workers come from.

Stewart Hosie: The Home Secretary will be aware of previous announcements of the shortage occupation lists by the migration advisory committee and of ongoing consultation on the prevention of illegal working. There is, of course, also the immigration review that she is discussing in this question. Is she confident, given that a plethora of different bodies are doing similar and related work, that the output from each will be consistent and avoid any conflict between the necessary job of preventing illegal working and the equally necessary job of ensuring that labour shortages in certain sectors continue to be dealt with?

Jacqui Smith: I am confident that we are putting in place the necessary bodies in working order to ensure that. That is why the migration advisory committee, which I mentioned in my previous answer, has a clear remit to assess the economic benefits of migration and the way in which we should manage that for the benefit of the British economy. The migration impact forum, which met just this month, has a clear responsibility to examine the impact of immigration across, for example, public services and other aspects of our communities. Taken with the wide range of other activities that I outlined in my first answer, those give us a clear view of our priority objectives, and we are increasingly putting in place the machinery to make sure that they are delivered.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to welcome the Home Secretary to her new role. I am sure she will fulfil it with the calm good sense that she has already displayed. On the migration review, people like me who were elected on a platform of a firmer, faster and fairer immigration process have been concerned that we deliver on the speed of the process. One of the welcome aspects of the migration review was accelerating the pace of change, speeding up decision making and making decisions more effective. One of the difficulties that I have had in looking at the speed of decision making is the fact that the asylum statistics do not report on the end-to-end model—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are we going to manage a question? We must have a question.

Fiona Mactaggart: May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please have a seat while I am standing. The hon. Lady should ask a precise question and not give us a preamble.

Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was whether my right hon. Friend would look at the figures that are published in the asylum statistics, so that the whole length of time that an asylum decision takes—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That will do. There are other Members to call.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), is right. It has been a clear focus of the work of the Border and Immigration Agency to reach those decisions more quickly and to get them right. That is why the decision for the majority of asylum seekers will be made within one month. Before the end of the year we will achieve the milestone that we set ourselves, for 40 per cent. of asylum cases to be completed in six months from the decision through to the disposal of that decision. My hon. Friend raises an important point about how we report the asylum statistics. That will be the subject of a review of asylum statistics being led by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) over the summer. I hope to be able to report back to her when we have carried out that review.

Nicholas Clegg: I welcome the Home Secretary to her first Home Affairs questions. The Government have made much of the role that identity cards will play in the management of our immigration system. Her Minister for Immigration and Asylum said to me on the Floor of the House in February that up to 70 per cent. of the cost of ID cards would be absorbed by the introduction of biometric passports. Given that in the High Court the Government are blocking a request from the Information Commissioner demanding publication of the Government's own early cost estimates for the project, will she agree today to allay growing public concerns about the ballooning costs of that vast project? Will she agree to place before the House as soon as possible a full, detailed analysis of the costs of the project from beginning to end?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman and his party, as well as the official Opposition, have taken a consistently oppositional approach to the use of identity cards to support our objectives in relation to immigration, how we counter terror, and how we make sure that people in this country get the things to which they are entitled— [Interruption.] Sometimes that opposition is hidden behind concerns about costs, and sometimes it is hidden behind more supposedly principled arguments. Nevertheless, it is opposition, and Opposition Members have to face up to the consequences when difficult decisions are being made. On the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is about the release of information being prepared for and provided to Ministers to allow the most rigorous analysis to be made of the ongoing costs of delivering a very important policy—ID cards. I am, of course, completely in favour of freedom of information, but it is also my view that there will be— [Interruption.] There will be important areas such as advice to Ministers and ongoing analysis of policies that the original legislation never proposed should be subject to freedom of information. If we are to ensure that those reviews are as rigorous as the hon. Gentleman and I both hope they are, that is an entirely reasonable position to take.

David Taylor: Only a few days ago, I signed off a letter to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) describing a set of circumstances that I am sure is common in the constituencies of most hon. Members, which is that a good number of people who are working in local residential care homes as carers are foreign nationals who have been here for several years. When will the Border and Immigration Agency's new system for processing work permit applications be up and running? In the interim, an awful lot of applications are being rejected, with all that that entails for the stability and fair treatment of the foreign nationals who are here, and indeed for the quality of care that will be available in residential care homes without the services of those people.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the potential contribution that migration can make to our economy. Improvements have already been made to the work permit process, but of course one of the challenges is how we can, as we go forward, bring some consistency and coherence to what has developed over the years into 80 different routes for immigration into this country. In order to do that, the very good progress that has been made so far on the points-based system of dealing with immigration is absolutely crucial. That is why I have been encouraged by that progress.

David Davis: The Home Secretary says that progress has been made, yet the head of Interpol stated that the Government are failing to check visitors against its database of stolen documents and suspected terrorists. The Government's own counter-terrorism adviser, Lord Stevens, has criticised our porous borders. Only this weekend, we discovered that a convicted French terrorist has been allowed into Britain. Just hours ago, Muktar Said Ibrahim was found guilty of conspiracy to murder for his role in the 21/7 attacks—a man who, despite the fact that he was facing criminal charges for extremism at the time, was allowed to leave the country, go to Pakistan to train, and come back and plan the attempted murders of 21/7. The Government's own e-borders policy will not be in place for seven years. What immediate action is the Home Secretary planning to protect the public?

Jacqui Smith: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point in respect of Interpol, I hope that I can provide reassurance to the House that it is already the case that all known and suspected terrorists declared by Interpol are placed on the warnings index by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. That warnings index has 17 million entries and is routinely used for the scanning of passports of all those who enter this country. However, work is also under way with SOCA to provide access and searching functions against the Interpol stolen travel document database at the border. We have already carried out a study, and I am expecting a report on that next week.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's general points about the security of our borders, I have to say that he fails to recognise the considerable progress that has been made. That progress already enables us to check and verify the fingerprints of those applying for visas on entry to this country. Through measures that we are taking in the UK Borders Bill, foreign nationals in this country will be subject to biometric ID cards. In the past two years, airline liaison officers have already turned back more than 150,000 people—the equivalent of two jumbo jets a week—because of a failure to have the correct papers or because of concerns about them. The first stage of the e-borders scheme has already enabled us to track 22 million passenger movements, has issued over 12,000 alerts to border agencies, and has—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I feel that the Home Secretary has done well to explain the situation.

David Davis: The Home Secretary says that action is being taken. However, the weaknesses in our control and security do not just apply to doctors: bogus student applications are an even bigger loophole. Her predecessors—all of them—have made tough promises. Let me quote just one—the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, three or four years ago:
	"We are going to tighten up dramatically on students coming in, the colleges which take those students...Secondly, making sure that those students who do come actually turn up on their courses, and don't disappear".
	Since that promise, one university alone—Portsmouth—has notified the Home Office of 2,500 students who were given places, and presumably got visas on the back of that, but did not turn up. What did the Home Office do about it?

Jacqui Smith: Well, I had only just got started.
	Let us get on to the subject of foreign students. They bring considerable economic benefits to the UK, contributing more than £5 billion a year to our economy. We are determined to ensure that the student route is not abused, which is why it is already the case that students found ineligible for a visa are refused entry to the UK. Visa applicants, including students, are checked on application against the warnings index of 17 million entries. From April 2007, a package of rules changes have taken effect, which tackle the abuse of the student route.
	With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's specific question, there is already mandatory reporting of enrolment and attendance of students, when requested by the Border and Immigration Agency. Failure to do so would result in a college being removed from the current Department for Education and Skills register. The introduction of the points-based system with a much stronger focus on sponsorship will mean that all sponsors will have to be accredited, and any college or university that does not do so will run the risk of being taken off the list, and will thus be unable to sponsor students and get the benefits that come from that process. We have taken strong action to tackle the abuse already, and further is planned.

Illegal Raves

Henry Bellingham: When she next expects to meet chief police officers from East Anglia to discuss illegal raves.

Vernon Coaker: I understand that illegal raves have been a problem in East Anglia. Operational decisions on the use of the powers available to deal with them are for the police to take. The Association of Chief Police Officers met on Thursday 5 July and my officials tell me that they are taking forward work nationally to look at intelligence gathering, partnership working and current legislation regarding the issue of illegal raves.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister will be aware that there was a time when raves were generally low-key, good-humoured events. During the past few weeks, there have been a number of illegal raves in my constituency where there has been substantial criminal damage and violence, a great deal of damage to property and the peddling of illegal drugs. The local police are fully stretched and are doing their best, but does he agree that the time has come for records of raves to be centrally recorded? The Government should look again at the powers the police have. Will he consider the matter urgently?

Vernon Coaker: I am not aware of being present at any illegal raves, and I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman has been to any either.
	The issue of illegal raves is important; they cause considerable disquiet, distress and law-breaking in many areas of the country, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency. ACPO has set up a sub-group to look at the issue, and one thing it might consider is whether to take on board the central recording of illegal raves—a point made by the hon. Gentleman. I also point out to him that there are considerable powers available to the police under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which was amended by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, to prevent raves from taking place, and to deal with them if they come to pass. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.

Internet Service Providers

Si�n James: What work she is undertaking with internet service providers to ensure that they take a responsible approach to the contents they host.

Jacqui Smith: The Government continue to work with the internet industry to ensure that inappropriate material is not hosted in the UK and that there is a greater understanding of and clarity about when criminal offences have been committed on the internet.
	As part of that approach, there is ongoing co-operation between internet service providers and law enforcement agencies. Most service providers have acceptable use policies in place that enable the removal of material from any site if it is illegal, distasteful or otherwise unacceptable.

Si�n James: I thank the Home Secretary for her answer and congratulate her on her new role.
	Given the huge increase in videos that depict scenes of violence, antisocial behaviour and criminal behaviour, which are being uploaded on to such internet services, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the police to have more powers when dealing with internet service providers who persist in the glorification of such acts?

Jacqui Smith: It is clearly unacceptable for such criminal acts to have been committed in the first place and then uploaded on to the sorts of sites that my hon. Friend mentioned. We need to look at the matter in two stages. First, criminal law already covers the first offence of the attackwhether it is assault, wounding, actual or grievous bodily harm or antisocial behaviour, which my hon. Friend mentioned.
	Secondly, someone who records a violent offence could be criminally liable for uploading it either because they have committed the offence being filmed or because they were involved in planning it and would therefore be open to charges of conspiracy, incitement, aiding and abetting or being involved in a joint enterprise to commit the offence.
	Uploading the video as well as taking part in the offence could be an aggravating factor when sentencing is considered. It is important to keep the matter under review and my hon. Friend has put her finger on something that concerns many people. However, the law is in place and we need to continue working with the police and internet service providers to ensure that we limit that unacceptable activity.

Paul Beresford: The Home Secretary will know that paedophiles regularly download some appalling child abuse videos and films on to their computers. Increasingly, they are encrypting the material so that the police cannot get access to it. The police have been waiting about five years for the statutory instrument relating to encryption and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. When will they get it?

Jacqui Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a strong interest in the matter. Since coming into the Home Office, I have been impressed by the work of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and the work that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) is leading. I understand that we are looking at that specific matter to bring it forward. I hope that we can get back to the hon. Gentleman with news on that soon.

Brian Iddon: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a substantial piece of work that Zentek Forensics in my constituency carried out? It showed that it is ever so easy to google one's way around the firewalls that prevent children from accessing some very undesirable material. That is happening in schools, libraries and children's bedrooms in the evenings at home. Will my right hon. Friend look at the providers of commercial filters and try to get them to strengthen their firewalls?

Jacqui Smith: I am happy to look at anything we can do to protect children from some of the dangers of the internet. I recognise, of course, that the internet plays an important role in the lives of children and young peopleat their schools, in their social lives and in their ability to research. However, it is clearly unacceptable if we cannot put the technical safeguards in place. We have been considering how we can, for example, kitemark some of the products that are involved in filtering and monitoring software. Perhaps, as part of that activity, the company to which my hon. Friend referred could make some progress. However, we take the issue extremely seriously.

Patrick Cormack: Although I welcome the Home Secretary's comments, does she agree that it is a tragedy that what used to be the place where childhood innocence was protected and preservedthe homeis now often the place where it is corrupted and destroyed?

Jacqui Smith: If that were the sole impact of the internet and some of the new methods of communication, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, as the parent of a teenager, I have had my eyes opened and been amazed by the scope for friends to communicate with each another and talk to each other through sites like Bebo. Sometimes I wish that they would talk face to face; nevertheless, important elements of social networking take place through such sites. We need to put in place the technical safeguards necessary to educate parents and children about how to use them safely. That is an important part of CEOP's work. I know that work is going on to consider especially those social networking sites. We will soon produce guidance on the technical matters and the way in which we can better advise parents, who need to take responsibility for what their children do in the home.

Martin Salter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on her new role. Will she join me in paying tribute to Liz Longhurst, who has campaigned tirelessly since the horrific murder of her daughter, Jane, for the outlawing of extreme images of violent internet pornography, which will be made illegal in the recently published Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when that welcome measure is likely to receive its Second Reading?

Jacqui Smith: I think that the legislation to which my hon. Friend refers is due to receive its Second Reading in the autumn. He is right that the campaigning of Liz Longhurst, ably supported and championed by him, has brought the issue to the fore and applied the necessary pressure to bring about those legislative changes, which will be important in offering protection in this area.

Special Constabulary Employer Supported Learning Scheme

Bob Russell: If she will extend the special constabulary employer supported learning scheme.

Meg Hillier: In February 2004, the Home Office, the Metropolitan police, Dixons and Woolworths launched the ShopWatch initiative, which recruits employees as special constables from retail establishments to patrol their own retail areas. The ShopWatch programme succeeded in reducing retail crime by a half in 2004 in the participating stores and is a prime example of proactive partnership working across the community and forces. The freedom to decide whether to go ahead with the scheme lies with individual police forces and their partners. They need to decide whether it would suit their area and be useful. The National Policing Improvement Agency offers support to any areas that wish to take the scheme up.

Bob Russell: May I welcome the Under-Secretary to her position, congratulate her on her promotion and, somewhat rarely for me, congratulate the Government on a project that is very worth while? While thanking employers for allowing staff to join the ShopWatch scheme, I should like to place on the record our appreciation to them and urge the Under-Secretary to encourage every police force to introduce it. It is the best news that we have had for special constables, with the first six in Essex joining last week, in Colchester.

Meg Hillier: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of the scheme and has been a driving force behind its introduction in Colchester. I am certainly happy to congratulate Colchester's business specials, as they have been dubbed, and congratulate the participating stores, Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco, Colchester borough council, Bluestone and Essex police for getting the scheme off the ground. The best advert for the project is a successful scheme, as well as the hard work that the hon. Gentleman has put into highlighting it. I shall be watching with interest and I hope that other hon. Members will highlight the project in their areas, too.

Lyn Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that volunteering in the police force, the ambulance service or the fire brigade is an excellent way of creating sustainable communities and getting collective responsibility within them for their safety and well-being? If so, is there any way that we can expand the ShopWatch scheme to other private and public sector bodies?

Meg Hillier: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we all take collective responsibility for our safety. It is fair to say that my hon. Friend Sir Alan West highlighted that at the weekend, which is an important aspect[ Interruption.] As someone asked from a sedentary position, Is he a friend? He is indeed. A man who has held such a high position in the Navy, patrolling our waters, certainly has my friendship and, I am sure, that of other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asked whether we could extend the scheme to other areas. It is worth highlighting the fact that although we are discussing ShopWatch, we also have hospital watch, campus watch and borough beat, which run in conjunction with hospitals, universities and local authorities.

Douglas Hogg: May I ask the Minister whether there are any arguments of principle against a paid special constabulary, as with retained firemen or the Territorial Army? If there are no such arguments, why have not the Government put a paid special constabulary in place during the past 10 years?

Meg Hillier: One of the special aspects of the special police is that they are volunteers; they are paid only out-of-pocket expenses. The Government introduced police community support officers, who play a vital role in our neighbourhood policing teams in constituencies up and down the country. It is worth noting that while the Government supported the introduction of police community support officers, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party voted to delete some of their powers of arrest in April 2002, when the Police Reform Bill was in the Lords.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We in the House agree that these schemes are excellent and provide a good way forward for community cohesion. How should we expand them? What work is being done with employers to persuade them that the skills that volunteers learn as special constables are transferable to their place of work, and to encourage more of them to take up those schemes?

Meg Hillier: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of employers being on board in terms of such schemesspecial constables might require their employers to allow them some time off work. ShopWatch special constables have highlighted that the transferable skills that they have gained have given them confidence in spotting potential shoplifters, for example. The scheme has contributed to a reduction in shoplifting when those specials are off duty as well as to the safety of the area when they are on duty.

David Ruffley: According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of special constables has fallen from 19,900 in 1997 to about 13,000 today. When does the Minister expect the number of specials to rise and to get back to the 1997 level that new Labour inherited?

Meg Hillier: The Conservatives can hardly criticise the Government, given the enormous increase in numbers in the Metropolitan police service, whose numbers are now at their highest level ever, and the introduction of police community support officers. As for special constables, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be great to see more volunteers, and we need to encourage employers to support the various schemes that I have outlined. We have seen a small increase in numbers. Up to 2006, we had 13,405, and we are awaiting the figures for this year, which will be published on 26 July.

Border and Immigration Agency

Keith Vaz: When she plans to visit the Border and Immigration Agency in Croydon.

Liam Byrne: The Home Secretary plans to visit the Border and Immigration Agency in Croydon when her diary permits.

Keith Vaz: When the Home Secretary visits the agency, perhaps with the Minister of State, would they care to look into the in-trays, the filing cabinets and the post room controlled by the director general to get an explanation as to why it takes so long for Members of Parliament to get replies to simple questions and to obtain information requested from Ministers? I know that the Minister will try to deal with this question with his usual boyish charm, but these are serious issues that affect our constituents, and we need to get basic replies to our letters.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right

David Davis: About your boyish charm?

Liam Byrne: In much of his analysis.
	My right hon. Friend will know that we have systematically dealt with our priorities over the past year. We started off by tackling the problem of foreign national prisoners, and moved on to ensure that we had the right amount of resources in immigration policing. He is right to say that resolving the legacy that has built up over the past few years must be tackled. We make something like 1.4 million immigration decisions a year, and about 85 per cent. of right hon. and hon. Members' letters are now dealt with inside 20 days, compared with 32 per cent. in 2003. We need to go further, however, and that is why further investment is required and will be delivered.

James Clappison: But is the Minister aware that on 5 August 2005, in response to the July bombings, the present Government made their top security priority the need to establish new grounds for deportation there and then? Is he also aware that in a written reply of 6 June this year, the Government said that since then there had been only one deportation? That means that in the intervening two years we have had three times as many Home Secretaries as we have had deportationseven if a small number of deportations have taken place since 6 June. Why is it that, as with Hizb ut-Tahrir, so many dangerous individuals are still with us?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman has pursued this line of inquiry for some time and with some interest both in this Chamber and on the Home Affairs Committee. He is wrong to say or pretend that the full picture is about deportation, when so much of the important work is not just about undertaking deportations, often with assurances, but excluding those people who should not be here. Looking into the role of exclusion and removal as well as deportation is therefore important. Over the past couple of years, there have been about 176 occasions on which the previous two Home Secretaries used their powers to exclude or remove people. That demonstrates a very clear readiness to use the available powers to protect the United Kingdom.

David Heathcoat-Amory: On the very question of deportations, does the Minister agree with the previous Home Secretary's statement of 24 May, in which he said that the deporting of criminal and terrorist suspects was being prevented by the European convention on human rightsa situation that he described as outrageous? He further claimed that it was leading to a situation in which
	we have an inadequate apparatus with which to fight terrorists.[ Official Report, 24 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 1433.]
	Does the Minister agree with the previous Home Secretary on the ECHR, and, if so, what is he going to do about it?

Liam Byrne: The then Home Secretary provided a full answer to that question at the time. The judgment under ECHR is one that dates back, if my memory serves me correctly, to 1996, and is known as the Chahal judgment. We believe that it prevents us from weighing the right considerations in the balance when we are making those decisions, but that is precisely why the UK Government are seeking to intervene in the Dutch Ramsey case, as we want the correct balance of considerations to be applied when taking such decisions.

Anthony Steen: Before I ask my question, may I tell the Home Secretary what a good job the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), has done on the trafficking of human beings and that the all-party group, as well as many other non-governmental agencies, are grateful to him for that.
	When the Home Secretary goes to Croydon, will she have a word with the Paladin team, which deals with missing children, and ask how it is that 183 children have gone missing from local authorities in the last 18 months? No one seems to know where they are and nobody cares about them. Should not the Home Secretary now take a serious interest in the number of children missing from local authority care who are never found? Should she not be doing something about that?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is grateful for the praise. The point about how we look after children who arrive here and claim asylumthe so-called unaccompanied asylum-seeking childrenis an important one. We think that it is vital that the Border and Immigration Agency, along with other agencies, have a closer relationship with children while they are in care. That is why we suggested introducing tighter reporting arrangements for children. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that when it came to debates in Committee, it was his party that opposed those measures.

Computer Crime

Michael Fabricant: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of measures to tackle computer crime and online fraud; and if she will make a statement.

Vernon Coaker: May I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for his remarks? I think that my wife, and perhaps my children, would be surprised at his pronunciation of my constituency!
	The Government have recently legislated to reform the criminal law to ensure that the Computer Misuse Act 1990 is fully up to date and able to cope with developments in e-crime. We continue to work with industry and law enforcement partners on crime prevention initiatives, including Get Safe Online, and we maintain regular contact with stakeholders to monitor the effectiveness of our efforts.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He will know that anyone with a credit card, which I guess is most people in this country, can receive e-mails saying, Please can you send information about your card, because it needs to be updated. That is what they call phishing, which is wrong and can lead to computer fraud.
	There have been more and more instances of such e-fraud. Yet it seems at times that the police do not turn up any more when they are contacted, because the tide of such crime is rising higher and higher. The Minister said in his answer that there were numerous agencies to tackle that crime, but what steps are he and the Home Office taking to try to ensure greater co-ordination between those agencies to stem that ever-rising tide?

Vernon Coaker: Part of the solution is for people to recognise the real risks that may be involved in so-called advertisements on the internet, and our education programme Get Safe Online seeks to achieve that. As for co-ordination, the hon. Gentleman will know that as part of its remit the Serious Organised Crime Agency has an e-crime unit, which I have visited and which is dealing very effectively with some of the most serious aspects of internet crime. Meanwhile, we await a business case from Commander Sue Wilkinson of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who will give us ACPO's views on what we should do about a co-ordination unit.

Andrew Miller: Co-ordination on a cross-force and indeed a cross-border basis is mission-critical. Legislative changes may be necessary to enable money to be chased, because if we do not chase the money we will never get to the root of the crimes. My hon. Friend is right to praise the work of Get Safe Online, but will the Home Office use some of its advertising budget to promote that work to the parents and businesses who could benefit from it?

Vernon Coaker: I think that the easiest way in which to answer my hon. Friend's question is to say that of course we will consider his suggestion. As I have said, education abut the internet is crucial. We will think about the budget: at present the Cabinet Office funds Get Safe Online, but we will consider whatever we believe may be necessary to make use of the internet safer.

James Brokenshire: Since April, it has no longer been possible to report incidents of online banking fraud directly to the police. Instead, victims must notify their banks, which have discretion to decide whether to refer the matter to the authorities. Does the Minister accept that that sends a confused message about the seriousness with which this type of crime is treatedalthough it has risen by 45 per cent. in the past yearand suggests that his Department either cannot cope or cannot be bothered with e-crime?

Vernon Coaker: It certainly does not indicate that the Department is confused. Nor does it indicate that the Department is not bothered about the whole issue. What we have done, with the agreement of ACPO and the Association for Payment Clearing Services, is change the system so that instead of going to the police station and not being sure what response they have received, people will tell the banks when they believe that fraud has occurred. The banks will then determine whether it has occurred, collate the reports, and give them to the police. That means not only that people will be recompensed for losses they have incurred but that the law enforcement agencies will be able to detect patterns of criminal activity, as a result of which far more perpetrators of fraud will be caught and dealt with by the courts.

Brian Jenkins: I do not expect my hon. Friend to safeguard foolish people from giving details of their bank accounts or passing their money to conmen, but is he as anxious as I am to ensure that necessary safeguards do exist? I want to be certain that if I make a purchase online from a small company using my credit card detailsor if one of my constituents does sothat company has a firewall to prevent others from hacking into the system, taking my details, and using my card to purchase other goods. Will small, and indeed large companies have a duty to safeguard my details, and how will that be achieved?

Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right that it is not only members of the public who have a responsibility to protect themselvesone of the purposes of Get Safe Online is to encourage people to be aware of the difficulties they might facebut that small and big companies also have a responsibility to protect their customers. We are constantly in discussions and negotiations with them to discover what more they can do in that regard so that we ensure that we minimise fraud.

Illegal Immigrants

Nigel Evans: What steps she is taking to enhance the effectiveness of the measures in place to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the UK.

Liam Byrne: There are two key steps to countering illegal immigration: biometrics to lock visitors down to a single identity, and intercepting and stopping illegal immigrants as far from our shores as possible.

Nigel Evans: I endorse what the Minister has said, but Migrationwatch UK states that there are 875,000 illegal immigrants in the country, and that 50,000 of them are detected every year but only one in four are returned home. We should thank goodness that we are an island. May I suggest three steps? First, we should link fingerprints to passport details in the worst offending countries so that no one can say, I've lost my papers, in between boarding an aeroplane and getting off it. Secondly, we should have a national border police so that we can secure our borders better. Finally, when illegal immigrants are detected and they fail asylum procedures, 100 per cent. of them should be returned to their country of origin.

Liam Byrne: I saw some of the news associated with that Migrationwatch report. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, since exit controls were phased out from 1994 it has been difficult to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country; that is why we are introducing a system to count people in and out. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a good idea to keep the problem as far away as possible from our shores. We are now introducing biometric visas, which have already led to us finding 4,000 people with an immigration history we had reason to be suspicious about who were trying to get back into the country. E-borders, which screens people at check-in, is already up and running and has already resulted in 1,000 arrests. Increasing our offshore border control will be an important part of what we do. However, more money is needed in order to remove more people who are here, but when we brought forward proposals this year to raise visa charges to provide an additional 100 million for immigration policing, Front-Bench Members of the hon. Gentleman's party sat on their hands in Committee.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Does he agree that human trafficking is extremely damaging to the home economy, potentially devastating to the lives of the individuals who are trafficked and very profitable? Will he undertake to talk to the Serious Organised Crime Agency with a view to increasing the scope of offshore controls of such illegal immigration?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that he is aware of and welcomes the measures in the UK Borders Bill that ensure that where human trafficking or human smuggling offences are organised or perpetrated anywhere on earth we now have the chance to prosecute them. I will raise the matters he mentions with SOCA, which I am meeting in a few days' time.

Alistair Carmichael: May I draw the Minister's attention to a written answer he gave me on 14 June,  Official Report, column 1234, where he told me that there was no evidence to support speculation that illegal migrants were entering Scotland via the Faroe islands? When he gave that answer, was he aware of the report in  The Scotsman newspaper on 4 June which stated that two groups of Asian men arrested for entering the country illegally had told the authorities that they had done so by travelling to Denmark and on to the Faroe islands and then to Shetland? How much evidence does the Home Office need before it can see a risk that is so blindingly obvious to the rest of us?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman did not, I think, give me the dates of the evidence in  The Scotsman, which is a well-researched newspaper, and the answer that I gave him. If he has specific allegations to give to me, I will have them looked into.

Damian Green: The Minister knows that one of the reasons why illegal immigration is an attractive option for too many people is that there is the possibility of an amnesty for those who are here illegally. He has spoken out against such an amnesty, but other more senior Ministers have spoken in favour of one. During the notorious Newsnight debate between the Labour deputy leadership candidates, the successful candidatenow Leader of the Housewas asked about such an amnesty and said:
	People who have worked hard here and paid their taxes should be allowed to stay.
	I think that she is wrong and the Minister is right. Can he reassure the House that the deputy leader of the Labour party has no influence whatsoever on the Government's immigration policy?

Liam Byrne: My policy on amnesties remains unchanged.

Biometric Identity Cards

David Kidney: What assessment she has made of the potential effectiveness of biometric identity cards in helping law enforcement agencies to tackle terrorism.

Liam Byrne: Constant assessment by the police, Security Service and the Home Office continues to confirm the value of ID cards in disrupting terrorism by linking individuals to a single identity.

David Kidney: In respect of combating terrorism, can my hon. Friend confirm that the security services advise that a biometric identity card would be of value, and can he particularly say what their reasoning is for that advice?

Liam Byrne: The House will remember words said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) who quoted some of the material that has been found in al-Qaeda training manuals encouraging would-be terrorists to proliferate the number of identities that they have. It was the former director general of the Security Service who put it well when she said:
	Widespread use of false documents is an essential aspect of terrorist activities... ID cards will make it more difficult for terrorists to operate.

Flooding (England)

Hazel Blears: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about recovery efforts following the recent flooding. Above all, I would like to express my deepest sympathy and the sympathy of the whole House to the friends and families of those who have lost their lives. Our thoughts are with them.
	The scale of devastation in the flood-hit areas is enormous. Our current assessment is that 31,200 homes and 7,000 businesses have been affected. Many roads and rail links remain closed. Schools have been damaged. Agriculture has been hit hard and the lives of thousands of people have been disrupted.
	The recovery effort will need support from across central, regional and local government, businesses and voluntary organisations. The Prime Minister and I have agreed that the Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), should take the lead to co-ordinate Government support. He has been working closely with colleagues across Whitehall to do so and I am grateful to him for all the work that he has done so far. He, like my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary, has visited some of the worst affected areas. Indeed, just this morning he met the chief executive officers of key affected local authorities. We will follow that up with a further meeting in Leeds on Wednesday, and other visits from colleagues are planned.
	Media reporting has tended to focus on particular areas such as Hull. But the fact is that a large number of areas and a very large number of people have been affected across the country. We recognise that and our commitment is to mobilise assistance to every community that has been affected.
	I myself have visited communities in Toll Bar in Doncaster, and in Sheffield. Physical damage is the most obvious effect of flooding, but I was struck by its emotional impact, too. I have met people who have been devastated by what has happened: such as the elderly man living alone who had lost not just his possessions, but the phone line that was his link to the outside world. Luckily for him, his daughter was around to help him. I recognise, too, that many others feel angry about what has happened. We must help them to try to pick up the pieces of their lives.
	I have also met some of the brave men and women who have made a real difference at a difficult time. Families and friends have helped each other out. The fire and rescue service, the ambulance service, and the police have done an excellent job. Local authorities have stepped up to the mark and I would like to acknowledge their resourcefulness, and the way that they have prioritised to give most support to the most vulnerable. The voluntary sector has really come into its own.
	In fact, a whole range of organisations has worked together to give people the practical help that they need. I have seen fantastic co-ordination of services, such as the Sheffield humanitarian aid centre which was set up immediately. In Sheffield, the local authority visited 2,000 families in the first 48 hours. I have been impressed by how very testing events have brought out the best in people.
	Communities want to get back to normal as swiftly as possible. Our priority now is to support them in doing so. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will continue to work closely with the local authorities, the fire and rescue services, the insurance industry and other partners, who have already done so much, to ensure that everything possible is being done.
	We are providing vulnerable people with access to crisis loans and community care grants, so that they can afford basic essentials such as fresh clothes and bedding. We are giving people advice so that they can help to keep themselves and their families safe and healthy. We are meeting the Association of British Insurers tomorrow to ensure that hard-hit households and businesses get the support that they need urgently.
	We are working to protect jobs. The regional development agencies have set up a range of funds to support small businesses affected by the floods but there is much more to do. We are now gathering information daily on the scale of the challenges, and the visits will carry on. We know that we need to maintain our efforts and that there are long-term problems that we have to face across a range of areas. Where schools are still closed, councils have swiftly arranged alternatives to ensure that children are educated. The Department for Children, Schools and Families stands ready to work with schools to look at re-profiling some capital expenditure to help get buildings up and running again as soon as possible, and especially by September. While local authorities have undertaken sterling work in assisting with short-term homelessness, many homes are going to be uninhabitable for some time and we know that medium to long-term temporary accommodation will be needed.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is keeping the situation under review and remains in close contact with the National Farmers Union. Transport and infrastructure is an issue; rail links have been affected, some roads are closed and others are seriously undermined. The Department for Transport will assist local authorities once the full scale of the damage has been assessed.
	It is because there is much more to do that, on Saturday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government will be providing a rescue fund of 14 million. We are working to get these resources to local authorities as soon as possible. These funds will be in addition to the significant extra resources that local authorities can access through the Bellwin scheme.
	Some 10 million will go direct to local authorities in the flood-hit areas to support the work that they and other organisations are already doing, particularly to help those who have lost everything and need immediate support. We will work closely with the Local Government Association to help local authorities deliver this support quickly and effectively, and with the minimum of bureaucracy. Communities told me that they wanted the money to get to them as quickly as possible. Some 3 million will meet immediate claims from local authorities to help with the cost of repairing roads and bridges, and 1 million will help some of our most vulnerable people to replace essential household items, such as cookers and beds.
	The Prime Minister also announced that we are making changes to the Bellwin scheme, which is designed to help local authorities reclaim costs in emergencies. Instead of having only two months to claim under the scheme, local authorities will now have six months. Instead of being able to claim 85 per cent. of the expenses incurred, local authorities will now be able to claim back the whole costs of eligible expenditure. This will help to ensure that assistance reaches those who need it most. Debate has already started about what more we can do in the long term to reduce the chances of this kind of destruction happening again. This is a real concern among those who have been hardest hit by the flooding.
	It is clear that we need to continue investing in the fire and rescue services, so that they have the equipment they need. The Government have invested 200 million in new dimension equipment for the fire and rescue services. I saw the crucial difference that this could make, with new high-volume pumps being used to drain flood water in the midlands and the north.
	We also understand the need to continue investing in flood defences. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced to the House last Monday, Government investment in flood defences will rise from 600 million this year to 800 million in 2010-11. We have strengthened planning policy on development and flood risk; this makes sure that planners and developers work together to locate new developments away from flood risk areas where possible. It also makes sure that any necessary new development in a high-risk area is safe and does not increase flood risk.
	We must learn from the events of recent days. These rains were unprecedented, but it would be wrong to suppose that such an event could never happen again. We must consider what more could be done to prevent this scale of damage in the future. It is right to be thinking for the long term, but we should not let that detract from the urgent business of giving practical help to the people who are suffering now.
	The new measures that I have outlined today are essential, but let me reiterate that they are a first step. In the weeks and months to come, we will continue to work closely with local leaders to help all our communities get back to their normal lives as quickly as possible.

Eric Pickles: First, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her new appointment and wish her well in her new role. I also thank her for the advance copy of her statement. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services, councils and voluntary workers who have worked tirelessly over the last fortnight to help the victims of these terrible floods. I also join her in expressing sympathy to the victims of the flood. It will be a long time before those communities can enjoy anything like normal family life. It was evident from watching her on Saturday that she had seen people's distress from visiting those dreadful scenes, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). We should not be in the game of laying blame, but I have several questions regarding the right hon. Lady's statement. Financial support from central Government is essential to ensure that councils are able to rebuild; otherwise, they face cuts in local services or hikes in council taxes due to the cost of reconstruction. In Saturday's statement, the Department said that the Bellwin scheme reforms would not be permanent. Why is that? In 2001, its predecessor Department warned that the main live issue with Bellwin was
	local authority expenditure on flood protection and response to flooding.
	Is there not a case for a complete review of the Bellwin scheme, including the capital costs of flooding, rather than using these short-term fixes? Councils such as Herefordshire and Carlisle have previously introduced local council tax discounts for the victims of flooding. Will the right hon. Lady encourage councils to adopt such measures? Can such expenditure by flood-hit councils be claimed back under Bellwin?
	Does the right hon. Lady agree that the public are entitled to have the best information available on flood risk? The National Audit Office has warned that fewer than half the country's high-risk flood defences are at target condition. Will she place in the Library a list of the defences that are below target condition? Do not residents deserve more information not just about coastal and river flooding, but about urban drainage problems and our creaking sewerage system?
	If the right hon. Lady believes in openness, will she speak to the Environment Agency about its clampdown on websites such as OnOneMap, which seeks to make the agency's public flood map data more accessible to the public? Insurers are calling for full access to the agency's national flood and coastal defence database. Should not both the public and insurers be given free access to that data, provided that insurers continue to insure at-risk properties?
	The Government are planning extensive development on the Thames Gateway, much of which is floodplain. What plans does the right hon. Lady have to revise building regulations to ensure that new homes are built in a way that will minimise damage if there is flooding? What funding mechanisms will be used to ensure that the new developments are constructed with robust flood defences? What steps are being taken to encourage the use of natural wetlands and the restoration of natural floodplains to prevent upstream flooding?
	The Secretary of State says that the rains were unprecedented, but we have witnessed a succession of major floods in recent years. The Government created the regional resilience team and regional civil contingencies committees to improve co-ordination of emergency responses. What role have they played in tackling recent flooding, and what lessons can be learned to improve their responses to other disruptive civil emergencies?
	The Chief Fire Officers Association has criticised the institutional confusion among the myriad public sector agencies responsible for tackling flooding incidents and has called for a single lead agency to co-ordinate responses, but was that recommendation not made three years ago after the Boscastle and Carlisle floods? Will the right hon. Lady place in the Library a copy of the conclusions of Exercise Trident, the flood contingency planning exercise of 2004, so that we can judge what advice was given? Will she confirm that the 14 million that the Chancellor announced is to replace last year's 14 million cut in the budget? Are new moneys to be made available?
	If the Minister is not to come to the Dispatch Box with ever-increasing frequency, we need to understand why our infrastructure could not cope with changes in the weather. We need to learn the lessons and to improve co-ordination. Above all, we need to know who is in charge.

Hazel Blears: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion and thank him very much for his kind words in welcoming me to my role. I am grateful for his tribute to the emergency services in these circumstances. I am delighted that he started his contribution by not seeking to allocate blame to any organisation. It is absolutely right that we all try to come together to ensure that we provide practical help to people.
	The hon. Gentleman asks me about the financial support. In these circumstances, the Bellwin scheme will be extended to cover 100 per cent. of costs, and he asks why that is not the norm. We have made the change because we are looking at exceptional circumstances; the rainfall was unprecedented. It is right that the Bellwin scheme should continue and that we should have the flexibility to extend it in exceptional circumstances.
	The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Bellwin scheme should cover capital costs, as well as resource costs. I understand that, in exceptional circumstances, if resources would be better used for capital rather than revenue expenditure, we could consider some claims for capital costs, but that it would be very unusual for us to do so. More often than not, local authorities need revenue for things such as immediate rest centres and immediate cleaning up. They are not really looking for capital moneys in these circumstances; they are usually looking to cover revenue costs.
	The hon. Gentleman asks whether local authorities could offer council tax discounts. One of the issues raised in my initial discussion during my visit to Doncaster on Saturday was whether there might be some relief from council tax in cases where people cannot occupy their properties. That is a matter for the local authorities concerned, and I have no doubt that it will be an issue in the longer-term discussions.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that information is absolutely vital. People have been reassured when they have been given good, timely and swift information about what is happening and about the resources available. Our flood defence programme is indeed not just about physical flood defences; there is also an extensive programme of flood warnings and other information made available locally to people.
	The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Environment Agency database is available to other bodies, and I will certainly look into that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Information is important, but what is crucial is getting the right information, not information that could lead people to panic about the circumstances or to make hasty judgments.
	As for the Thames Gateway and building on floodplains, the hon. Gentleman will know that about 10 per cent. of properties in England are constructed on floodplains. We have recently revised our planning guidance in planning policy statement 25, which provides a much more rigorous planning framework for building on floodplains. Plans must now be submitted to the Environment Agency for it to take a view. The presumption is that we try to direct development away from floodplains, but where development is necessary, there is now much more emphasis on risk assessment. I recently saw a scheme that diverted the watercourse to enable the water to spill over on to a wetland area, instead of it being constrained in a rigid watercourse, which in the past had led to flooding problems. Being more innovative and smarter about the planning regime will help in those circumstances.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the regional resilience teams established under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. I hope that he would agree that that Act has put in place an effective framework whereby people can carry out exercises to cover the various eventualities. I was delighted to learn that the last exercise carried out in Sheffield in May dealt with the possibility of wide-scale flooding. Perhaps that contributed to the excellent provisions, including a humanitarian aid centre, that were put in place.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of institutional confusion and the absence of a single lead. I do not accept that, because there is a clear single lead under the 2004 Act. The police have the lead for a whole range of different emergencies. They establish Gold Command to take strategic decisions and Silver Command to look at situations across the area, and they usually have Bronze Command, which involves the taking of detailed tactical decisions on the ground. That kind of organisation has been proved to work in very many circumstances.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about money, which was inevitable. The 14 million package, 10 million of which is from my Department, is new money and I am sure that he will accept that.
	The hon. Gentleman's final point was about whether our infrastructure can cope with changes in the weather. What we have seen over the past few weeksand the devastation that has been caused to thousands of people, businesses and homes across the countryis perhaps a little more than a change in the weather, but he is right that we need to think ahead, to look at how the climate is changing and to see whether we need to take any further steps. The one overwhelming message that I received from my visits was that people were coping extremely well with what had happened this time, but that they would find it very difficult indeed if there were to be similar events in future.

John Prescott: As a Back Bencher, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I echo the praise of the people of Hull for the emergency services, the voluntary services and the local authority workersthey all worked tremendously hard. The floods damaged more than 5,000 houses in Hull, closed many schools4,000 children were looking for a schooland caused great damage. Tragically, a man was killed in the process of trying to stop the floods and help a neighbour. In those circumstances, it is easy to understand why the people of Hull think that they are the worst affected on this occasion.
	Does my right hon. Friend recognise that in the past seven years, we have had floods in Carlisle, York, and Boscastle, and now we have floods in the Yorkshire area? These events are not just a matter of exceptional weather, although of course that is part of it. They are happening much more frequently. We had better begin to recognise that we have fundamentally to review our whole water management system. In particular, I draw her attention to the drains and sewage that have contaminated so many houses and schools. Cleaning those buildings will take a long timeeven before the repairs start. No doubt we will determine the long-term consequences. In view of the fact that the Government have committed some money for immediate application, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that clean-up is considered not only by her Department, but by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, so that we can get youngsters back to school and people back into their houses? We have to do that. Will she send some officials to Hull to discuss how we can use that money immediately? I thank her for all her efforts, and particularly for agreeing a few days after the floods to send a Minister to Hull.

Hazel Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done in Hull both to try to alleviate the problems experienced by local people and to bring together the various local agencies, so that they were able to be very effective. I extend my sympathy to the family of the gentleman who died in Hull, Mr. Mike Barnett. That was a terrible tragedy and I know that there is to be a full coroner's inquest into the events that happened.
	My right hon. Friend is right that there have been recent incidents in Carlisle and Boscastle. In my previous role as Minister with responsibility for the police, I had occasion to visit both those areas and I was particularly struck by the fact that the effects were apparent many months after the initial events took place. One of the things that I am concerned to ensure is that the action both of central and local government continues for the long term, because many families will need support in the long term. Sometimes it is easy for the media circus to come and go. We have to ensure that all our agencies are working to support people.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned schools. Many primary schools, in particular, have been affected. We are having discussions with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to see whether we can re-profile the capital programme in relation to building schools for the future to make sure that improvements are made, and to see whether some immediate extra funds will be available to get schools up and running as quickly as possible, and particularly by the start of the new school year. That will give the families security.

Andrew Stunell: May I first welcome the Secretary of State and her new team? We have regional and sub-regional connections and I look forward to meeting her across the Dispatch Box from time to time. I thank her for today's statement. It is extremely important that recent significant events be tracked carefully by Parliament and Government, and that we understand exactly how they will unfold and how the Government will engage with the problems that have arisen.
	We associate ourselves with the sympathy that the Secretary of State expressed for the many thousands of families who have been affected and the businesses that face disaster as a result of the flooding. We also associate ourselves with the thanks given to the emergency services, the local councils and the voluntary sectorthey have done so much work.
	We welcome the extension of the Bellwin scheme, but will the Secretary of State confirm that there is to be no threshold on claims made under the scheme by local authorities? Will she also say more about the exceptional circumstances in which capital claims might be considered? As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made clear, some of the damage is significant and, in some cases, it will be more cost-effective to demolish and rebuild than to clean out and refurbishone course of action involves capital, and the other revenue. Clearly, if the reconstruction process is to represent value for money, the Bellwin scheme should reflect that fact; it should not be a difficult case that has to be argued. Those decisions need to be made within days and weeks, not months. The plan of action for Hull, for instance, which has many schools out of action and 4,000 damaged council houses, must be developed quickly.
	In the medium term, we must consider the resources available for assessment, as loss assessors from the insurance industry seem to be in short supply. There is perhaps a capacity problem in the building industry, too. Will the Secretary of State undertake closely to monitor those issues and to ensure that, if necessary, resources are drafted into the affected areas to maintain steady progress? She herself has said that it is important that the effort should not be relaxed once the media circus has gone. Previous disasters overseas have shown that that is exactly what happens. Those apparently trivial points about capacity are often at the heart of the difficulties that people face in resolving such issues.
	Will the Secretary of State give special consideration to the pleas made by one or two local authorities for additional help and support in dealing with the crisis that they face? I am particularly thinking of Hull as, by all accounts, it is the most severely affected local authority. Looking to the longer term, she has referred to the changes that will be made under planning policy statement 25. However, she will be aware that a large slice of the planning applications to which the Environment Agency objected, on the ground that they would result in building on floodplains, has been approved. I would like an assurance that those cases will be given particularly careful consideration, so that we do not build in problems for the future.
	Finally, the Secretary of State mentioned the 800 million for flood prevention work, and said that the work would take place up to the year 2010-11. Will she say what the phasing is for that increase? Will she give the House an assurance that that money will kick in, and will be available for expenditure, at the earliest practical moment?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome. I have no doubt that Greater Manchester will figure significantly in our discussions. He asked me to make sure that progress is tracked carefully; I entirely agree that we need to make sure that we keep our focus on the events that occurred.
	I am particularly pleased that our regional Ministers will also be playing a role, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, who has been extremely involved in taking these issues up in recent days.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of support to businesses, which is important. I visited Meadowhall, the shopping centre in Sheffield, which had been quite badly affected by the flooding, and that was particularly true of the retail businesses. Yorkshire Forward has set up a scheme and has provided 1 million to help small businesses. Advantage West Midlands is looking at something similar, and there is something similar in the east midlands as well. The regional development agencies will therefore help businesses with their immediate costs.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Bellwin threshold, which is 0.2 per cent. of local authority budgets, will still be in place. We have extended the grant to cover 100 per cent. of costs, which is a significant expansion, but the threshold will still be in place. He asked about the capacity of the insurance industry, particularly in relation to assessors. The Association of British Insurers indicates that the process of getting assessors in is well under way. Certainly, on my visits, I found some variation in the responses of different insurance companies. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, and the relevant Ministers from the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and, I hope, from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform are meeting the insurance industry tomorrow, so I hope that the House appreciates how seriously we are taking the issue of insurance to make sure that claims are dealt with speedily and fairly and that there is sufficient capacity to get on with things, because that is a top priority for members of the public. The hon. Gentleman mentioned builders, and we need to be careful that reputable builders are involved in the restoration work.
	I mentioned the new planning guidance, PPS25, and we need to make sure that it operates properly, that we manage the risk of building on the floodplain and, where there is development, that it is appropriate to the area. We will continue to keep a close eye on that. The 800 million for flood prevention is to be made available for the next comprehensive spending review period. I am not in a position, and nor is my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, to give the profiling of that expenditure as yet, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman's request that it kick in as soon as practicable to meet requirements.

Mary Creagh: In Wakefield, 2,000 homes were directly affected by the flooding, and I was contacted by Rev. Mike Croft of St. Catherine's church on Doncaster road about the lack of information that people received about personal hygiene and about their inability to wash their hands. That was solved by a generous donation from Boots the Chemist in the city. However, when I tried to write to the homes that were affected last week, the Environment Agency told me that its useful eight-page guide about what to do before, during and after a flood was available only online and that I had to download it and photocopy it. When I rang the agency up again this morning to say, Actually, I think you should deliver that guide to me, I was told that it would take three to five days for 500 leaflets to travel from Leeds to Wakefielda distance of only 10 miles. May I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that information on hygiene and Environment Agency advice are distributed to every household affected in the country?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although, like her, I am grateful to Boots for helping out in these circumstances, it is our responsibility to make sure that households have proper health advice. Clearly, there are problems relating to toxic water, drainage and sewage, and it is essential that those are dealt with for public health reasons. I take on board what my hon. Friend said about the Environment Agency not having leaflets available, and I will certainly work with my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary to make sure that that is remedied as a matter of urgency. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we should get that information out to the households concerned.

David Curry: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the frustration of people in Ripon, who have been expelled from their homes for the second time in seven years, as they were told that the scheme that was approved three years ago does not have sufficient priority to go ahead? Losing one's home must be treated as a priority. Will the Secretary of State look at agro-environmental schemes to give farmers an incentive to hold water on the land through the way they manage their farms? At the moment, those schemes do not incorporate that element. Will the right hon. Lady also discuss with the Treasury whether local authorities, which contribute a derisory amount to local flood defence committees, can increase their contribution without those amounts falling foul of the capping criteria?

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman makes a telling point about the effect of repeat flooding on households. Having recovered from one flooding episode, there can be nothing worse than to be faced with the same circumstances again. I entirely understand that. On the flood scheme priorities, I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary about these issues. The matter of farmers holding water on land has been brought to my attention. It may well be that more can be done with innovative planning schemes and by finding different ways for the water to be held or to be discharged harmlessly, rather than causing the flooding problems that we have seen. We will certainly look into that. The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the various capping criteria and whether there is the possibility of some leeway. That will have to be considered as and when we get to that position. I hope that we do not get to that position, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman shares that hope.

Richard Caborn: I am fresh from the retraining course for ex-Ministers, so I shall try to keep within the rules. I associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I thank all my colleagues for the work that they have put in over the recent past. It has been welcomed and appreciated in the affected areas.
	In relation to my constituency and its industrial base, there are some serious problems. The industry there is heavy industry, and eight or a dozen of the major companieslarge companiesare facing real difficulties. Even smaller companies which have not been affected by the flooding but which are in the supply chain to the larger companies view the situation with concern. The chamber of commerce, in discussions with many of us in Sheffield, has asked us to raise the matter in the House and ask the Government to look specifically at the large companies in the Don valley, which are major producers and on which the smaller companies in the supply chain rely. That is important. In this world of globalisation, many of those companies are not funded from within the UK. Foreign investors and the parent companies will be looking at those companies, as some will have to relocate. That relocation may not be in the UK. That are some genuine concerns, which I hope my right hon. Friend will convey to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, as that wealth creation is extremely important to the whole of south Yorkshire and, indeed, to the nation.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for hisas everincisive, succinct and effective contribution on behalf of his constituency. I am well aware of the effect on businesses. I know from visiting Sheffield last week that companies such as Forgemasters and Corus Engineering, which are big employers, have been very badly affected. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory ReformI do not know whether we call it DBERR, or perhaps DEBRAis visiting tomorrow and will meet representatives of the chamber of commerce to discuss the matters. The chief executive of the regional development agency, whom I met last week, is conscious of the need to give assistance. I am concerned about the message that this sends out, both to investors and to developers. We need to be conscious of the fact that in many areas, for regeneration and for industrial investment, it is important that proper steps are taken to maintain the confidence of those communities. Many of our areas are now thriving through regeneration and we need to keep that confidence going.

Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister for her statement, and I thank her colleague the Minister for Local Government for visiting my constituency last Friday afternoon to see the damage. Three rivers flooded in Chesterfieldthe Rother, the Hipper and the Whitting. Between them, they closed three of the six main roads into town, and affected 60 businesses and up to 1,000 houses. That they flooded is no surprise, because they have a track record going back well over a century. Prevention, of course, is better than cure and cleaning up afterwards. The defensive works on the River Rother are planned to start in 2011 and the feasibility study for the River Hipper is drawn up but with no date attached to it. Will the Minister assure me that she will be lobbying her colleagues in Government to make sure that money for these planned preventive works are brought forward, otherwise we will be back in a few years, going through the same story?

Hazel Blears: Yes, I am aware that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there has been significant damage. It has not figured quite as much on the media as some other areas, but I understand that 500 homes, two retail parks and between 60 and 80 other premises have been quite badly affected. Obviously, we want to ensure that we help people as far as we possibly can. He makes a telling point about prevention being better than cure. These matters will be considered across Government. There is always a need to prioritise, but with events such as these and thinking of the changes in climate, we need to make sure that we put our money where it can be used to best effect to try to protect as many people as we can.

Paddy Tipping: Wherever flooding occurs, it disrupts lives and homes. Will the Secretary of State particularly consider rural communities such as Lowdham, Woodborough and Lambley in Nottinghamshire to ensure not only that they get their fair share of resources for the immediate clear-up but that, in the longer term, they are given priority when it comes to allocating resources for flood defence measures?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, in representing his rural communities, always ensures that they are not left out and are at the centre of concerns. He makes an important point. People in rural communities can often feel more isolated and, particularly where there is a settlement of only a few houses, the effects of flooding can be devastating. That is why I said earlier that it is important to ensure that the Government keep a long-term focus on these issues. When I went up to Carlisle after the flooding there, I found that some people's mental health problems had lasted for a significant period, so help from health and social services was important, as well as dealing with physical flood defences. I will certainly ensure that rural areas remain a focus of our concern.

Tony Baldry: At the present moment, the Environment Agency has to allocate funds competitively among schemes in very large areas. That means that a town such as Banbury, which has the River Cherwell and the Oxford canal going through it, and has had a scheme worked up for some time, suddenly discovers that although it is still at riskweather patterns are changing, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) saidit is losing out because the Environment Agency thinks that there is a higher priority scheme in the Thames Gateway. I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said. When this has settled a bit, could the funding of flood defences be considered on a cross-party basis? Under the current system, local government does not seem to be able to make much of a contribution, we are all dependent on going to the Treasury cap in hand, and a lot of communities are starting to feel very vulnerable.

Hazel Blears: This is clearly an important issue to people right across the country. Inevitably, there will be limits to the amount of money that can be put in. However, I would draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that in 1997 we spent about 300 million on flood defences, whereas we are now spending double that600 millionand it will go up by another 200 million over the next couple of years. Significant extra investment is being put in. I have no doubt that it will never be enough to meet every single scheme that is proposed. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) who raised this in relation to his constituency, we must try to ensure that our finances are spent where they can have best effect and where they can protect people who are most at risk. I have no doubt that that assessment will be ongoing.

Shona McIsaac: Northern Lincolnshire was also badly affected by the severe weather; in fact, we are just on the other side of the River Humber from Hull. I appreciate the comments that my right hon. Friend has made about helping the local authorities that have been affected. When I was out and about in Barrow upon Humber looking at the rescue work that has gone on there, everybody was full of praise for the emergency services. However, people have obviously been devastated, so can she give a little more detail about the rescue funds, particularly the 10 million extra for flood-hit areas?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning an area that perhaps has not had a great deal of the public spotlight, although clearly the problems for people there will be just as dramatic. I understand that 160 residential properties in north Lincolnshire and 400 residential properties in the whole of north-east Lincolnshire have been affected, together with businesses, so it is a significant problem. In terms of the rescue funds that are available, 10 million will go direct to local authorities, and we hope to have that money in their hands very quickly. We want to ensure that that is then distributed to people with the minimum of red tape and bureaucracy and that it is allocated to the people who are in the greatest need. That is rightly a matter for local authorities; central Government cannot micromanage it, and nor should we. However, we want to ensure that we help local authorities to do it as quickly as they possibly can to try to help people who in some cases literally walked out of the door with what they stood up in. The crisis loans and community care grants should therefore be available so that we can get a reasonable package to people who have found themselves in such distress.

John Redwood: Why were more than half the flood defences maintained by the Environment Agency in an unsatisfactory condition last year? What urgent action will the Government take to improve the standards of maintenance carried out by the agency, and to do the most important capital works to increase capacity where people are most at risk?

Hazel Blears: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the events of the past couple of weeks have in everybody's terms been unprecedented. It is inevitable that whatever the defences we had put in place some would be breached in such circumstances. As I have explained, a significant amount of extra investment has already been made in flood defences, and even more will be put in during the next couple of years.
	Rightly, the right hon. Gentleman calls for urgent action. We all want action to be taken as quickly as possible, but it is important that extra investment is targeted at the areas where it will have the most effect, and where we will get the best value for money. It is without doubt that there is a significant amount of investment, which I hope will help in future, but it would be tempting fate for any Minister to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that we could have prepared for what has been a series of unprecedented events.

Clive Betts: I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Sheffield so promptly, and for the rightful praise she gave to the efforts of the city council. I also thank the Government for the initial financial help of 14 million, the improved Bellwin formula and the help given to small businesses through Yorkshire Forward. However, one of the major needs in Sheffield is help with the capital costs of the repair and, in some cases, replacement of roads and other public infrastructure. Initial estimates say that in Sheffield that could run into tens of millions of pounds. I know that my right hon. Friend cannot give a commitment to a particular sum of money, but will she give an assurance that when the assessments are made of these detailed costs, she and her colleagues will listen carefully to the requests made and respond positively to them? There is no way that the city council can meet such significant costs out of its existing budget.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I was particularly impressed with Sheffield's co-ordination of information for the local community. It has been one of the areas that piloted the 101 number, bringing together a whole range of services, which was extremely impressive.
	On the capital costs, assessments will be carried out and we need to deal with the immediate practical help that we can give. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Department for Transport is more than willing to visit Sheffield, and to sit down with the local authority to ensure that we have a proper assessment.

Michael Penning: My constituency suffered enormously 18 months ago from the Buncefield explosion, and I share my community's concern about residents who have left their homes. Losing a home is one of the greatest difficulties that anybody can go through, and 18 months on from the explosion there are still people in Hemel Hempstead living in hotels.
	During the next few months, will the Secretary of State look carefully at how the loss adjusters and builders carry out work? In Hemel, building work has been done and people have returned to their homes, but they have had to leave them again because cowboy builders had been in. The loss adjusters are not so friendly once the cameras are gone. As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) knows, it is a really difficult situation. Perhaps some of the experiences we have had in Hemel will help hon. Members in other areas.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Clearly his constituents have been through a pretty harrowing time following the explosion. When I went to Doncaster on Saturday, one of the things that left an impression on me was the fact that people were very reluctant to leave their homes. Many were seeking mobile homes that could be established in the local area, so that the community could stay together. The Toll Bar area has a strong community spirit, and people wanted to stay there. The impact of having to leave home is very significant indeed, particularly for elderly people.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a point about loss adjusters. It is important for us to keep close to the insurance industry and to ensure that the builders who carry out the work are up to standard and reputable, that they complete work to the right standards and that it is properly checked and assessed. The hon. Gentleman made some extremely useful practical points. Perhaps he could let us have the benefit of his experience from his area.

Denis MacShane: The European Union has a solidarity fund for natural disasters and floods from which up to 2 billion can be claimed for great events and from which much smaller sums can be claimed in the case of serious regional economic damage, which clearly applies to South Yorkshire and east Yorkshire. Why are the Government not accessing that fund?

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are looking at the matter urgently. There are specific criteria for accessing the European Union solidarity fund. As my right hon. Friend said, it is normally for major disasters such as volcanoes erupting and earthquakes. However, I assure him that, if there is any prospect of our making a claim and getting some resources for this country from the European Union, I shall pursue it with the utmost vigour.

Tobias Ellwood: We rightly pay tribute to our emergency services, but the death of Mike Barnett near Hull was tragic. What is the Secretary of State doing to achieve better co-ordination between the services so that another tragic death of that magnitude does not occur? She has repeated time and again that the weather was unprecedented, but this is now the norm. Weather patterns are changing and we need to act appropriately. Surely it is better to take more preventive measures rather than wait until the event has happened. That needs to be done. We saw what happened in New Orleans when the United States was shown to be unprepared for a disaster. I believe that the same will happen here unless we take action now.

Hazel Blears: The whole House will want to extend its condolences to Mr. Barnett's family about the terrible tragedy that happened. I think that I have already said that the emergency services that attended on that day found themselves in an especially harrowing situation. There will be a coroner's inquest, which will look at the circumstances, and it would be inappropriate to jump to any conclusions about what happened.
	The hon. Gentleman says that we need better co-ordination. My experience has been that the police, the fire services, the ambulance service, the voluntary sector and business support organisations have come together as a result of recent events in a tremendous way. When he tries to say that they have not responded, he makes an unfair criticism. We have a system in this country of proper civil contingency preparation and we can be proud of it.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that the climatic conditions are now the norm. Most organisations said that the weather was unprecedented: the amount of rain that fell in such a short time is the greatest since records began. That does not mean that it will not happen againwe must be prepared in future; prevention is better than curebut the hon. Gentleman's failure to recognise that the circumstances are pretty unique does not reflect reality.

Ian Cawsey: I was glad that my right hon. Friend acknowledged in her statement that the floods were not only in the big cities. There were several localised floods in my constituency. The numbers affected were not large but the floods were as traumatic for them as for anyone else, as I found when I met several victims over the weekend. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we learn the lessons of maintenance? It appears to me that several incidents were caused by obstructions in the drainage system and a lack of clarity about which authority is in the leadthe Environment Agency, the local authority, the internal drainage board or the water company. Will she ensure that those parties work together in future so that whatever problems weather brings, co-ordinated and improved maintenance will lead to less flooding and fewer victims?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the emergency services and for his constituents. I have no doubt that it is appreciated. He makes an important point about maintenance. Although the rainfall was unlike anything we had ever known, continuing maintenance is important. If the drains and the sewers are in good condition, they can absorb more water when it comes through. We will examine that matter to ensure that there is clarity about who is responsible and that good maintenance can contribute to better outcomes in the long term.

Christopher Huhne: It is clearly not just maintenance that requires good co-ordination. The Environment Agency is responsible for fluvial and coastal flooding, but floods are increasingly to do with drainage problems. Will the Secretary of State review the responsibility for flood preventionincluding the responsibility that appears to rest on local authorities and that which rests on, for example, the privatised water companiesto ensure that drainage systems are adequate and that Ofwat, the industry regulator, allows the companies where necessary to proceed with investment, in order to ensure that there is not an enormous discrepancy between the capacity of a drainage system in one part of the country and another?

Hazel Blears: Yes, the drainage problem is important. I have no doubt that increasing urbanisation has impacts on our planning framework, which is why we have been looking at PPS25, to try to ensure that we properly manage the risks of building on floodplains and of the kind of developments that are taking place. It is one of the issues that we can pursue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government is leading a group of Ministers across Government to ensure that we look at the issues. What is also important is that we learn the lessons from such events, and we absolutely mean to do that, so that we can best inform our policy for the future.

Point of Order

Mark Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. More than 10 days ago, the new Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform was created and Ministers were appointed. However, 10 days since that Department was created and those Ministers were appointed, I and other hon. Members have been told in response to our inquiries that not only does the Department not know individual Ministers' responsibilities, but that it cannot say when it will be able to inform us of those facts. In the light of important and pressing issues to do with energy, international trade and, indeed, small businesses that face flooding, as we have just heard, could you use your offices to press the Secretary of State for that Department and have that information made available to us, so that we can put our points to those Ministers? It cannot be right that that Department can be allowed to drift on in this way.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, but what I say is this: answers to parliamentary questions are a matter for Ministers. The hon. Gentleman should persevere and keep questioning the Minister concerned, both at oral questions and through written questions. Also, the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to raise an Adjournment debate. There is another thing that we need to have in this House of ours, and that is patience. I ask him to have patience.

estimates
	  
	3rd Allotted Day

ESTIMATES, 2007-08

Department of Trade and Industry

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 900, Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making, and the Government response thereto, First Special Report, Session 2006-07, H C  307. ]
	 This Estimate is to be considered in so far as it relates to scientific advice, risk and evidence-based policy making (Resolution of 2nd July).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008, for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry
	(1) further resources, not exceeding 4,098,506,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 438,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding 3,294,715,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid. [Liz Blackman.]

Phil Willis: May I begin by welcoming the Minister of State, Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), to his new position? I wish him every success in what promises to be a challenging time for the science community.
	I should also like to put on record my support for the new Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, or DIUS. The move to bring together our universities, research communities and the Office of Science and Innovation, underpinned by the emphasis on the development of skills, makes good sense and puts science and scientific method right at the heart of the new political agenda. As ever, the devil will be in the detail; but given the widespread support from the scientific community for the new Department, it would be disappointing if between us we could not make it work effectively.
	I should also like to put on record the appreciation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which I chair, of the work of the Office of Science and Innovation. We had an excellent relationship with the OSI during its time within the Department of Trade and Industry. We have greatly valued the support that we have received from Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific advisor, and Sir Keith O'Nions, the director general of the OSI. It is perhaps a testimony to the success of Sir David King, Sir Keith O'Nions and the OSI that science is now at the heart of a new Government Department.
	I have two initial concerns, however, and I am sure that other hon. Members will expand on these themes. The first relates to the fact that the word science does not appear in the title of the new Department. The widely held view in the science community that this is a significant omission was summed up by the president of the Royal Society, Lord Rees, who said:
	we would have preferred the word 'science' to have appeared in the new department's title.
	Indeed, there is concern that the new Department will be dominated by the university agenda, including the inevitable political battles over student fees, and that the focus on science and innovation may be diminished. I trust that the Minister will have time in his closing remarks today to assure the House that science will be the key driving force for his role and for the Department as a whole.
	My second concern is about the future of parliamentary scrutiny of science. Alone among Select Committees, the Science and Technology Committee has a dual role, for departmental and cross-government scrutiny of science, yet it appears that although departmental scrutiny may be accommodated within a DIUS Select Committee, the important scrutiny of science across government will disappear.

Ian Taylor: I am slightly confused. The hon. Gentleman began by welcoming the new Department, yet his subsequent remarks have raised the same doubts that I havenamely, that science will be relegated under the new system. Indeed, I think he is about to make the point that this could mean the end of the Science and Technology Committee. I would share his great dismay, if that were to be so.

Phil Willis: Given that the new Department was set up only last week, it behoves all of us to have a little patience while we see how the Minister and the Secretary of State approach the issue of science. I tried to make it clear earlier that it must be right to bring together the research councils, the universities, the Department and the Leitch skills agenda. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I share the views expressed in that agenda. I am disappointed that science is not in the title of the Department because this does not reflect the central position that the Prime Minister, when still the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave to science when he devoted two Budgets to it.
	On my second issue, scrutiny is extremely important. The hon. Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) are in their places today. There is no doubt that theyalong with other members of the Select Committee who have served for a long time and been strong devotees of science, together with many members of the scientific community, including the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Royal Societyfeel that the scrutiny of science is crucial for moving forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us his thoughts on that later.
	The main focus of today's debate is the report of the Science and Technology Committee's report on scientific advice, risk and evidence-based policy making, as part of our consideration of the estimate relating to the trans-departmental science group within the Department of Trade and Industry, headed by the Government's chief scientific adviser. This is slightly redundant because the DTI is no longer. The structures of government may have changed, but the relevance of our report is by no means diminished.
	Scientific advice and risk management play a key role in policy making. Indeed, many of today's most high profile policy issues are critically dependent on the input of scientists. Those issues include: securing the economic development of the UK through the knowledge economy; protecting the population of the country against avian influenza and other epidemics; mitigating and adapting to climate change; safeguarding the UK's energy supply; detecting and averting terrorist threats; and tackling obesity. In each case, effective policy development requires both an effective scientific advisory system and the appropriate use of evidence and advice on science by the Government.

Bill Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in order to qualify the science, particularly on avian influenza, it would have been really helpful if the Government had had a proper investigation into how the Hungarian strain of avian influenza arrived in East Anglia?

Phil Willis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On two occasions, the Science and Technology Committeeand, indeed, other Select Committeeshave looked into the Government's preparedness for avian flu and its arrival in the UK. When we met the Government's chief scientific adviser, we were certainly satisfied that appropriate policies were being put in place to ensure that we remained ahead of the game. I do not believe that the position has changed significantly since then. What we are at times trying to do is avoid scaremongering over what are, quite frankly, small and isolated outbreaks. The efforts made at the Bernard Matthews farms were excellently handled by all the relevant agencies.

Angela Browning: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, however good the science and however much it is evidence basedit is right that that sort of science should influence Government policy and the legislation that comes before the Housewe sometimes see trigger words being used and subjects falling prey to the tabloid press through lack of understanding? That problem is holding us back from delivering scientific advances that could benefit so many people, not just in this country but around the world.

Phil Willis: The hon. Lady makes a wholly valid point. I pay tribute to organisations such as Sense about Science, which try to bring about a good public understanding of science. I shall return to the point in some of my later remarks, but what happened over MMRmeasles, mumps and rubella vaccinationsor genetically modified crops, for example, was media-led. The Government and Government agencies did not take a sufficiently strong scientific lead, but left it to the media. I believe that that is a genuinely important task for the Government and, quite frankly, we need to spend a great deal more time applying our efforts in that regard.

Andrew Miller: I congratulate the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee on his work. I was particularly interested in paragraph 67 of the section of the report dealing with risk and communications, which states:
	We believe that the Government's communication strategy would benefit from the adoption of a higher public profile by departmental CSAs on policies with a strong evidence or science base.
	That is indeed correct, but does the hon. Gentleman agreeif I may take him back to his previous occupationthat we need to do some of that work in the classroom in order to get a better understanding of risk throughout society?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman makes two excellent points. In respect of departmental chief scientific advisers, it was largely as a result of the work of the previous Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Norwich, North that the expansion of departmental CSAs became a major thrust for the Government. What we say in our reportthe hon. Gentleman has picked up the relevant paragraphis that if the departmental CSAs are to be effective, they must have an independent voice. That is so important when it comes to communicating science.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention what happens in our schools. When it comes to the calculation of risk, our society is incredibly bad at it. It is important that we get realistic risk management in schools. If I may digress a little, my wife took a group of children to the Twenty20 cricket at Headingley last week and I helped her fill in the risk assessment forms. Quite frankly, it was like writing a thesisjust to take a group of school children in a bus to watch a game of cricket. Apart from analysing the bus chassis and establishing whether it was roadworthy, virtually every other conceivable question had to be answered. We have to get away from that and have proper assessment of riskbut I digress.
	We need to ensure that there is an emphasis in the new Department on improving the use of scientific advice, management and risk assessment in the use of evidence to support policy. There are, of course, many different ways in which scientific advice reaches policy makerswhether it be through formal scientific advisory committees, departmental chief scientific advisers, the Council for Science and Technology, or scientists and engineers within the civil service.
	Since 1992, numerous measures have been introduced to ensure that scientific advice reaches policy makers and is then used appropriately. In 1997 Sir Robert, now Lord, May produced guidelines on the use of scientific advice in policy making, updated recently by the Government's current chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. In 2001 the Government issued a code of practice for scientific advisory committees, and I am pleased that they have accepted our recommendation that it too should also be updated.
	We note that the Government issued a consultation on the code on 25 June, and we are pleased to see that the new code addresses our concerns about monitoring of scientific advisory committees. However, it does not state the Government's position on lay membership of such committees, an issue about which our Committee was particularly vexed. Given that it was an area of disagreement between the Committee and the Government, I should be interested to hear from the Minister what the code will say about lay members.
	The year 2002 saw the introduction of chief scientific advisers in Departments that use or commission significant amounts of research. We welcomed that step. I reiterate our belief that whenever possible, there should be external appointments of people who have occupied senior positions in the scientific community. Curiously, the one Department with no scientific adviser is the Treasury. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether, now that the former incumbent of the Treasury has moved to a new post, the Government have any intention of remedying the omission.
	There is little doubt that the Government have taken the right steps in creating departmental CSAs, but the Committee was concerned about the more general decline in scientific capacity in the civil service. That concern was highlighted by Sir David King's comment that many civil servants hid their scientific skills or qualifications because they saw them as an impediment to promotion. Disappointingly, there are no accurate figures for the total number of scientists and engineers in the civil service, despite a recommendation in the 2002 cross-cutting review of science and research. May I ask the Minister whether the common employee record will be used to collect data on qualifications to ascertain the number of engineers and scientists in Government?
	The Government said that their skills sub-department was conducting a sector needs analysis to identify skills gaps. Given that skills are the key responsibility in the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us its findings in relation to science and engineering.
	Without the capacity to be an intelligent customer, able both to frame the questions and to analyse and interpret the responses, the Government are potentially at a huge disadvantage. A classic example of the way in which things can go badly wrong was the Health and Safety Executive's response to the EU Physical Agents Directive relating to MRI equipment. The HSE's failure to understand that the directive could potentially halt the use of MRI for research and use in invasive procedures from 2008 was missed. I can report, however, that following the publication of our report Watching the Directives and a frank recognition by the Government that errors were made, there has been a significant change of heart in the European Commission, and an amendment to the directive increasing the limits for use of MRI is now highly likely.
	In past years, the Government could have relied on a steady stream of highly qualified scientists and engineers working in their own laboratories for advice, but the changing status of Government scientific facilities such as the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the Forensic Science Service and QinetiQ means further loss of capacity. Given those different factors, we recommended two solutions to the Government. The first was the establishment of a Government scientific service along the lines of the Government Economic Service. The Government told us that they recognised the need to create an effective structure to support the integration of scientists in Government, but were not convinced that formalising a single system across Government was the right action to take now. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister whether now is the right time, and whether the Government have reviewed their decision not to create a Government scientific service, particularly given the emphasis on the new departmental responsibilities.

Ian Taylor: I am intervening because I was the science Minister who took the decision that we should change the status of the National Physical Laboratory and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, and I am well aware that that moved the scientific echelon of the civil service out of the civil service. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I hope that the Minister will be supportive of the idea that we should re-establish the science and technology aspect of the civil service.

Phil Willis: I was not in any way trying to make a political point; I was merely musing that there had been a huge loss in capacity. During the hon. Gentleman's time as Minister, the Government could go to such organisations and command that they delivered responses; that has been lost.
	The second proposal, which we felt was very important, is that there should be greater involvement of learned societies in peer review and the assessment of scientific evidence that comes to Government. That would have the added value of possibly reducing the Government's dependence on external consultants. To that end, we recommended that the Government discuss with the learned societies whether aspects of the scientific advisory system in the United States could be adopted in the UK. The Government said that they would reflect further, and I would be interested to learn what reflections there have been.
	I wish at this point to pay tribute to the work of the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the body representing physics and the other learned societies which regularly give evidence of the highest quality to our Committee. Such evidence could be made available to the Government in exactly the same way it is to a Select Committee. Without their evidence, it must sometimes be difficult for Government to form conclusions of the kind that our Committee is capable of reaching.
	Scientific capacity is important, in terms of both social sciences and the physical sciences. If Government policies are to be evidence basedwhich the Government claim is the casethey need good scientific capacity. Since 1997, the Government have increasingly emphasised the importance of evidence-based policy making. In 1999, the Modernising Government White Paper and the Cabinet Office report Professional policy making for the 21st century emphasised the importance of the use of evidence in policy making. I also note that the National School of Government now runs analysis and use of evidence courses. Policies are thus increasingly promoted as evidence basedI am glad it appears that the Minister is nodding from a sedentary position. Unfortunately, however, few outside Government were prepared to accept the term evidence based as an accurate description of Government policy and we did not have to look far to find examples of a stark disconnect between evidence and policy. The former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the right hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), had almost no evidence when she announced her ban on junk food. Sir John Krebs, former chairman of the Food Standards Agency, was scathing. He claimed that
	the policy was developed with no evidence that it would work; no scientific definition of junk food; no cost benefit analysis; and no public engagement.
	The policy announcement broke every one of the Government chief scientific adviser's rules of engagement. Yet despite the presence of a departmental chief scientific adviser within the then Department for Education and Skills, the policy was allowed to run unchallenged.
	If the Government cite evidence in support of a policy, we believe that it should be able to bear robust scrutiny and that it should be communicated convincingly to the public. If there are problems with the evidence base, the consequences for public confidence can be grave, as was the case with MMRmeasles, mumps and rubellaor damaging to scientific progress, as was the case with genetically modified crops, or potentially disastrous, as with the weapons of mass destruction issue and Iraq.
	In our report, we highlighted four key issues on the use of evidence. First, the Government should take steps to strengthen the evidence base by establishing a cross-departmental fund to commission independent policy-related research. Will the Minister tell us whether he will set up such a central fund for independent research? We also acknowledge that it is not just a question of money, especially for academic researchers who are struggling to put together publications in time for the next research assessment exerciseor RAE. Indeed, for that reason we recommended that the Government work to rectify the situation in which the RAE acts as a disincentive to engagement by the scientific community with policy. The Government responded that the new metrics will achieve that and I would be interested to know how they will measure the success of the new metrics-based RAE in that regard in terms of public policy.
	Secondly, the Government should ensure that the evidence they use is of the highest quality. The use of evidence and its quality should be peer reviewed. We recommended that the Government commission pilot reviews of the extent to which policies are evidence based. The Government accepted that recommendation, and it will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether such pilot reviews have taken place.
	Thirdly, the Government should be gathering evidence to inform their future policy and undertaking horizon scanning. We recognised the excellent work of the foresight programme and the horizon scanning centre, but note that horizon scanning should be embedded within the policy-making process. It is no use if foresight produces excellent reports, but no one takes up the findings. Professor Paul Wiles, the Home Office departmental CSA, clearly stated to our inquiry that
	doing horizon scanning is one thing, getting an organisation to actually lift its head from immediate problems and think ten or twenty years ahead and use that horizon scanning is sometimes a challenge.
	It is a challenge, but it is a necessary challenge.
	Finally, we were concerned that when the Government undertake pilots or trials or runs consultations, the results should be published and their effect on the policy-making process made clear. We have looked at the trials of biometric technology for identity cards and emphasised to the Government that if those trials raise any doubts, the policy should be amended accordingly. Similarly, the Government need to ensure that the purpose and remit of consultations are clear and that feedback is given to those who have contributed. Problems such as the recent consultation over civil nuclear power undermine public confidence, not just in the consultation process but in the use of evidence in policy making more broadly.
	I understand that the Cabinet Office has recently launched a consultation on consultations. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether there is any early feedback from the process. As with scientific advice, it is important that the Government are open about the evidence underlying policies and we believe that evidence should be published and reviewed. That will ensure that evidence is not misused or selectively published in order to prop up policies.
	It was deeply disturbing to hear the allegations from Professor Tim Hope of Keele university that the Home Office had actually interfered with the publication of research. He said:
	It is with sadness and regret that I saw our work ill-used and our faith in government's use of evidence traduced.
	It is essential that the policy-making process and the use of evidence is fully transparent, and that where policy is not based on evidence, that should be made clear.
	We acknowledge, and make the point strongly in our report, that not all policy needs to be evidence based. The Government have every right to promulgate policies that are not evidence based. Some policies have a mainly political or ideological basis. We accept that. The Government should acknowledge openly the many drivers of policy making as well as any gaps in the relevant research base or where policy is made despite the evidence. If the Government promote the idea that all policy is evidence based, they are undermining those policies on issues such as MMR, GM and climate change, where it is crucial that there is public confidence in the evidence.
	Furthermore, if the Government change their mind about a policy as a result of a poor pilot or on the basis of new evidence, the OppositionI include my party and the Conservativesshould not use that as an opportunity for political point scoring. Changing policy on the basis of evidence, pilots or research should be seen as a political strength, not a failing.
	The third main plank of our inquiry into these cross-cutting areas was the management of risk. We did not attempt to deal with individual areas of risk, but focused instead on the communication of risk to the publicthe issue that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) raised. Successive Governments have attempted to deal with risk and it has risen up the agenda. We have seen green books, orange books, a Treasury guide on management of risk to the public, appraisal guidance and a risk management assessment framework; there have been lots of them. There is a long way to go, but I welcome the progress and urge the Government to continue to seek ways to sustain and improve risk assessment in policy making.
	During the inquiry, we looked at the ways in which risk is communicated to the public and considered good examples, such as nanotechnology, which was communicated well to the public, has been widely accepted and is being well used, and bad examples, such as GM. The way in which risk is communicated to the public is crucial, particularly given the weak scientific and numeracy culture in this country. We recommended that the Government develop a scale of risks that could be used by all Departments. Rather than saying that the risk was very low, or one in 100,000, one could say it was as likely as being murdered. People understand that. If one wanted to express a negligible risk, such as one in 10 millionthat means nothing to most peopleone could say it was as likely as being hit by lightning.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely good point. Did his Committee look at the fact that the public see risks imposed by the state and organisations such as the railways differently from the risks they take themselves? For example, we see the numbers of people who happily expose themselves to excess doses of sunshine, when that occasionally occurs. It would be crazy for the Government to suggest the banning of package holidays to Malaga, but risks from the railways, which are much lower, are higher up the agenda from the public's perspective.

Phil Willis: This is not an easy area and the Committee is not suggesting that. Our conclusion was that it is important to communicate risk in a way that people can understand, and we compared different types of risk in that way. The problem that the Government and all political parties have is the compensation and litigation culture that has come into this area. Small risks are now built up into major things; for instance, one cannot play conkersa use for horse chestnuts, I say to the Ministerwithin school grounds because of the risk. We need to get that into balance.
	The Government said in response to our report that they would have discussions with the media to try to maximise public understanding. I would be grateful if the Minister explained what that meant and what the Government have done in this area. The Government also told us that they were establishing an expert resource centre for public dialogue on science and innovation to help all parts of Government to enable public debate on science and technology-related topics. As far as we are aware, this is still just a Government plan. If so, when will it become a reality?
	Finally, may I return to the impact that the machinery of Government changes will have on the scientific advisory system within Government? The chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, was situated within the DTI as head of the Office of Science and Innovation. He therefore had a dual role combining a cross-departmental co-ordination and advisory function with the post of head of the OSI. We were concerned that these roles did not sit comfortably alongside one another and that the GCSA was unlikely to have time to develop both his cross-departmental role and his administrative functions within the OSI. It seems that these roles have been reviewed and that the changes are much more far-reaching than we suggested. We suggested that the GCSA should have a desk in the Cabinet Office and a seat in the Treasury. For him to sit with the Government's chief economic adviser, who also has a seat in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, would be a strong bolstering of the independence of the Department.
	Obviously, the DTI has been split, and what was the OSI has been moved into the new Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills. We understand that there will be a new office for the Government's chief scientific officer within that Department and that the OSI will cease to exist. Will the Minister clarify what the remit of that office will be? Will the chief scientific officer focus solely on trans-departmental scientific advice, or will he continue to have administrative responsibilities within the Department? The whole issue of scientific advice is important, and it should be at the heart not only of the new DIUS but the whole Government. I welcome the Government's response to our report.

Ian Gibson: I congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), on his new appointment, and wish him luck in the battles ahead. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), as Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, on building on the work of the past eight years in this area. He has taken it on rather well.
	Before we discuss scientific advice, we must address the question whether science is important. That battle has still to be won, not only in this country, but in large sectors of the rest of the world. If we cannot win that battle, we can give all the advice we want, but no one will listen to it or want it. Most hon. Members present can probably cite many occasions on which science has contributed to the betterment of the world or of health. For example, there is a lot of hyperbole around the science of stem cell research at the moment, but there are also great hopes and wishes that something will come out of the research. The evidence might not always be there, but people have a right to try to obtain it to improve conditions for people on this planet.
	I confess that I am a member of the UK Stem Cell Foundation, which was set up by Sir Richard Sykes and various other people, such as Jon Moulton, for whom the Treasury Committee does not have much time at present. The foundation can raise 90 million almost overnight from its connections, and it wants to make a connection with the Medical Research Council to ensure that work is done in this country, and goes all the way from blue-skies thinking to product formation in this country, so that we do not see, for example, antibodies being developed in the States. That culture is beginning to take off.
	There are problems with academics and researchers in general. Having been one myself, and still knowing many, I know, as other hon. Members present might confirm, that there is a great latent suspicion regarding the media and the communication of science. I have scars on my back from my frequent appearances on Radio Norfolk as a science adviser. I once tried to explain how a microwave oven works, and when I went back to the lab I was pulled apart by people who not only knew more about it than I did, but said that trying to explain a difficult concept to the public was simply a waste of time. That problem still exists. When I see my friends at meetings, as I did this weekend, they say things like, The public will never understand; it's much too complex. We still have that battle to fight in this country.

Ian Taylor: As an amateur scientistthe hon. Gentleman is a professionalI sometimes get frustrated when I have to defend science, because many scientists do not explain or defend it. It is a big frustration that, too often, scientists in this country do not engage in public appreciation exercises, although they really should if they want their sector to flourish.

Ian Gibson: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope to say a little more about how we might address that problem. But, certainly, words such as arrogance come to mind, and there is perhaps a lack of humility in communicating with the public among some scientists whom I know, and I am sure other Members know as well. I saw that at first hand during the whole genetic modification debate, which some of us battled through, against friends on both sides of the House, a few years ago, when scientists arrogantly sat round dinner tables and said, No need to talk to the public about it; they'll accept what the scientist says. That was a factornot the only factor, but an important onein the determination of this country and its people to walk away from GM crops and GM food. Indeed, a whole industry disappeared. Many of us learnt the lesson about that, but many scientists still have not done so.

Angela Browning: As someone who, in a former existence, licensed the first GM food in this country, I recall being given advice at the time that it was better to put up a scientist on the television than a politician, because the public would trust the scientist rather than a politician. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman's thoughts are about that, in the light of what he has just said.

Ian Gibson: My answer would be that there are scientists and there are scientists. There are scientists who work for companies such as Monsanto, whom I, and, I am sure, the hon. Lady, would not trust an inch, whereas independent scientists from a research institute or university are slightly betterlet us put it that wayand unlikely to mess up the data or the communication. For example, I remember John Krebs once talking about food and quite blatantly saying to John Humphrys, I don't really know; none of us knows. That is not the kind of answer that is expected in the media, where people are told, Say it in black and whiteyes or no? That is the Paxman-Humphrys school, which does not always go down well with the public.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman mentions the media, and I want to question whether he is right to say that the problems of GM acceptance were due to scientists sitting around at dinner parties and not doing anything else. It seems to me that once the media had decided to treat GM as they did, nothing could have been done. Although some preparatory work could have been done, the problem lies much more with the media than with a failure of scientists in that case.

Ian Gibson: I was a member of the John Innes Centre council at the time, and I remember a dinner party where Derek Burkewho was blatantly savaged by Prince Charles for defending GMand I talked to the scientists who were doing the work in this country. They said exactly what I said before, There's no problem. It's actually going to happen. Then one of them appeared in public. I sent him out to a small village in north Norfolk on a dark night. The village hall was packed out, Lord Melchett was there, and he was savaged to deathand will never speak again. He has got so bad at his science that he has gone to Cambridge as a professor of genetics, in dismay at having had to interact with the public on that kind of subject. He would much rather go into a sort of industrial environment in a department in Cambridge.

Brian Iddon: Have not the British media damaged the British industry? Compared with the American, Chinese and Indian industries, we have lost out because the British media have damaged the British industry.

Ian Gibson: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It was not just the scientists in the British media who purveyed the idea of Frankenstein foods and so on; the political people often did so, too. I remember that  The Guardian spent all its time talking not about the value of the foods, but about Lord Sainsbury's share interests. The political editors of the newspapers provided the focus, and the scientific editors were pushed aside. So a concerted campaign was going onwhich, of course, scientists are not used to. They are used to purveying what information they can, and having arguments and so on; they are certainly not used to discussing who has more shares than someone else.

Bill Wiggin: I am curious about the issue, because obviously, I was not part of the debate at the time. When a Minister has such a high-profile role in the wider debate, what is the hon. Gentleman's feeling about that sort of message coming from those in politics and Government towards the general public, and then their understanding of science?

Ian Gibson: People's hands must be rather clean. Of course, there are mechanisms for people working in this place, whereby they can filter some of their shares to offshore islands, such as Jersey and Guernsey. I do not think that that is any better, but it is quite legitimate, and if we are opening up transparency in this country, we should look at it carefully. In the case that the hon. Gentleman refers to, the individual did not try to defend the situation as much as the papers attacked him, and other people were defending the Government's position.
	The learned societies, too, were far from brilliant. Instant rebuttal was something I grew up with in the Labour party. Peter Mandelson was excellent at it with his team. Instant rebuttal meant 10 or 20 minutes. The Royal Society's idea of instant rebuttal was a long tome of 50 pages, which took six months to produceby which time it was too late and the battle was over. So, there were lots of lessons to be learned by different functionaries in the scientific and technological movement in this country.
	I am not entirely sure that the Science and Technology Committee reportexcellent though it isgoes into things in the depth that some of us would like. I know that there was a previous report and that this report moves the debate on, but there should have been a wider examination of the structure of science within Departments. The model that has been put forward is very like the model that we live with, but we could have been a little more radical in looking at the position of Ministers in the new Department. We do not just have one Minister with responsibility for science. There is also a senior Minister, who is in the Cabinet. That is something some of us would have died for: to have at the Cabinet table somebody who can put scientific arguments at first hand, and from the point of a view of a Department that is looking at innovation, higher education and science. I welcome that kind of initiative.
	The interaction between science and innovation is extremely interesting, and is an area in which we are still learning things. That interaction will take place within the Department. We have seen the first flurry of activity in higher education, with top-up fees and so on. We are all suspicious, but that has been an attempt to address a lingering problem. Things are beginning to happen. I have spent a lot of time listening to people who talk about blue-skies research, and I also talk to bio-entrepreneursin fact I presented prizes to some of them last week at Lancaster house. I was really glad when the first person who came up to speak was somebody to whom I had presented a prize the year before, who had set up a small company to make antibodies, outside Cambridge university. It was a spin-out company. Within a year of the conference, he had been bought out by GlaxoSmithKline for something like 1 billion. I am sure that none of us will ever see that kind of activity, but I was glad to hear that young person say that the work that he and his team of 12 had been doing had suddenly blossomed and attracted the interest of GSK.
	All the other people winning prizes live in the hope that the brilliant scientific ideas and innovations that they come up with will eventually be picked up by bigger companies. That may not be the best model. We might have to look again at smaller companies just developing into medium-size companies. The talent of individuals in this country is second to none, but I am not yet convinced that we have the structures to make sure things happen, although the openings are there for things to move on. We may need a lot more in the UK Trade and Investment area to make sure that those bio-entrepreneurs develop their particular skills.
	I often ask whether we need a chief scientific adviser. I am always worried that we have been given a set system. Is a one-on-one situation with the Prime Minister, involving direct interaction, the best way to get science across? I am not entirely convinced that that is not just a reaction to a situation. The current chief scientific adviser did a brilliant jobunheraldedwith the foot and mouth outbreak when he showed the curves illustrating how it was going to disappear after a period of time. That demonstrated real ingenuity, and it came from a knowledge of the scientific community, who were doing that kind of epidemiological modelling.
	The new Department has many openings with Ministers and so on. There will be an arena of people in the Cabinet and across Government involved in the whole thing. I always say that a department where people drink coffee together and take part in other activities is where things happen. The success of the Medical Research Council laboratory at Cambridgewhere Nobel prizes have been wonwas helped by the caf on the top floor. People could sit with Crick and Watson and argue and talk to them about research until the cows came home. It was brilliant. I tried to institute something similar in Norwich; I set up a caf where people could interact across the boundaries, and forget what they called themselves, whether they were zoologists, botanists or molecular biologists. It was great that they got together and talked in an interdisciplinary way, but as soon as I disappeared the caf was closed and people were put back into their silos, and their own professors became the bosses of the coffee club.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that a couple of weeks ago I hosted a meeting in the Members Dining Room, in which General Motors gave a presentation about future vehicles. Its plea was for Government to sit people from the component parts of what was the Department of Trade and Industry around the same table, so that we could produce the interaction necessary to help develop ideas.

Ian Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I thought for one second that he was about to talk about Fairtrade coffee; I was sweating somewhat. Nevertheless, he makes the point that intercollegiate interaction is important these days, as science moves on. Old titles disappear, and new subjects are born overnight. Take nanotechnology, for examplealthough I am not quite sure what it means in detailed terms. There is an excitement about the new technologies brought about by physicists, chemists and biologists, and that brings them together. That is the way forward, and we have to do a lot more in that respect. I welcome the new Department for the chance that it gives people in different arenas, such as innovation and education, to work together and talk and argue in an interdisciplinary, collegiate way.
	I am sure that I will be forgiven for saying it, but the civil service is, in the main, scientifically illiterate. That is what we have to deal with. If we come together and bring forward new, sparky ideas, they will be the civil service's ideas tomorrow.

Angela Watkinson: Is it not the case that eminent scientists, particularly research scientists, often come up with diametrically opposed conclusions, and does not that engender interest, not just among Departments and the civil servants whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but among the general public and schoolchildren? It shows them that science is an area for ideas, and that sometimes there is not a definitive response to a problem.

Ian Gibson: I share the hon. Lady's sentiments entirely. I know eminent virologists who do not believe that AIDS is caused by a virus, and who argue about it at conferences. That is the nature of involvement in science; one never knows what one might find out, and what we think today may turn out to be subject to another explanation tomorrow. That is the excitement of it, and that is why young people deserve a better education, as the hon. Lady says.
	I want to speak about risk. Points have been made about how hard it is to define it, and to get people to take it seriously, but I read that Natalie Angier, the science editor of  The New York Times, has written a book called The CanonA Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science, which she believes sets out the minimum knowledge required by an educated person. A similar thing has been done in this country in a book by Bill Bryson; it is an amazing read. The Royal Society of Chemistry, bless it, gave one to every school in the country. It addresses the basic questions that young people ask, such as How do you weigh the Earth? and Why is the sky blue? Some hon. Members will have heard that question asked the other week. The most eminent scientist in the country could not answer it, so narrow are the specialities. But that is the nature of science: one cannot know everything, but by interacting, we can share information.
	Angier mentions an issue that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised: how can we define risk in terms simplistic enough to give people an idea of what is meant? She says:
	You would have to fly on a commercial aircraft every day for 18,000 years before your chances of being in a crash exceeded 50 per cent.
	Let us not mention the effect that that would have on climate change; that is another issue. That quotation brings the subject into perspective. She goes on to raise many other points.
	I have made the point that the question of how one goes about getting evidence is important. The issue of stem cells has been discussed in this Chamber and in the other place, and I remember those occasions well. Some hon. Members who are present in the Chamber today thought that we might lose the vote on the subject. There was concerted action not to argue the science in a peripheral way but to make it clear, and to involve patient groups and others. I did not see many civil servants or people from other Departments. What really won the argument was the parliamentary process interacting with people outside who ran patient groups. That was a real phenomenon, but it is not always picked up. For several weeks, we made the arguments, and we won the vote. It delighted many scientists in this country that Parliament made a decision that put us in the leading frame on this type of research. Of course there was, and is, no guarantee that stem cell research will deliver the cures for motor neurone disease and so on, but it is the chance to get the evidence that is important.

Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend find it rather strange that Galileo was prevented from making progress by the religious people of his day, and that the stem cell scientists have almost been prevented from making progress by the same group of people?

Ian Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am very aware of that, given that I serve on the Joint Committee on the Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who also chairs the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which produced the report before us today. We have met religious groups, and nothing very much has changed since those late nights that we spent as students arguing for Darwin's explanation of phenomena against the religious explanation. Yes, the issue is still there, and the battle will continue. Science never sleeps, and the battle to make sure that its voice is heard will continue.
	Evidence comes from all corners of the worldscience is global. Lots of people interact, not only at the academic level, but in terms of getting information. People will have noticed that  The Observer on Sunday includes part of  The New York Times, and the science is rather good, explaining issues in terms that anybody with some kind of scientific literacy could understand. The situation is getting better, and it will get better still.
	People are suspicious, however, that much of the research undertaken to obtain that evidence is done behind closed doors. There are companies that do private research. We know about the falsifying of the stem cell data in Korea and so on, and other countrieseven the United Statesare privatising research. There are also conflicts of interest. Scientists are very keen on intellectual property rights. When I go to meetingsI went to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence the other weekI have to sign a document that says, Anything you hear must not appear in the newspapers tomorrow. I find it rather foreign to communication across the scientific endeavour that we cannot have open and transparent discussions because there may be a commercial interest involved.
	Convincing politicians will be extremely difficult. I often ask myself why that is so. Lawyers do not care whom they defend; they will defend the victim or the alleged perpetrator of the crimeit is a job, it is money, it is what lawyers do. Scientists do not behave like that; they have a belief, a determination to be honest and an ethical code, and they talk to each other at meetings and behind the scenesand that is curtailed only by the intellectual property phenomenon that is now with us.
	As regards the stem cell debate, we should also remember that the company's commercial interests immediately create suspicions among members of the public. There is huge, scathing distrust and a belief that certain companies that do the science hide the data to get amazing profits.

Angela Browning: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the opposition to a scientific development, particularly when it is translated into legislation and argument in this Chamber, is sometimes very much influenced by very well-resourced lobby groups? The money that they can call on to mount a campaign against such developments should perhaps sometimes be balanced against the commercial interests involved in developing something that would not otherwise be developed if there was no commercial benefit to it.

Ian Gibson: I thank the hon. Lady. That is another truism. Many people are put under pressure subtly or quite openly. Most hon. Members find it difficult to say no to someone who wants to talk to them about a problem, such as a drug that they cannot get commercialised or get approved by NICE. That makes life difficult for us. To advise us, we need a grouping that is not subjected to such pressure. I do not know whether that exists anywhere in the world, but we ought to try to achieve it.
	The first hour of the meeting that I attended at NICE was spent with people talking about their commercial interests. Either the laboratory had been funded by the company that wanted the drug to be approved, or some social benefit had been offered, such as a trip to Florida. It is hard to resist that, even if one feels neutral. In the decision-making arena, such pressure can influence the way one considers the evidence. I hold my hand up and say that sometimes I do not speak out when I should because I feel some empathy with the people presenting the evidence. It is disgraceful, and having been a boy scout, I should know better.
	NICE is an organisation that is finding its way forward to assess the evidence and to try and restore confidence in certain areas in medicine. If any group that scrutinises medical developments does not get it right, that damages the research and the patients. Scientific endeavour generally gets a bad name, and public funding with public support can quickly disappear. I was amazed how quickly the support for GM disappeared. We lost the argument day by day, until there was little left to fight for, although I remember slanging matches with friends of mine in this place who were against it from the beginning.
	Evidence that comes forward often raises expectations. Scientists should be careful about that. The hyperbole that is sometimes associated with certain types of science gives rise to the kind of scary stories that discredit science. There may initially be disagreements, but ultimately there will be agreement about issues on which the evidence is not solid. Somehow that gets in through the media or the public domain, and is believed. A friend of mine, Ben Goldacre, writes a column in  The Guardian every Saturday exposing that kind of phoney science, especially in the food industry, and some of its claims.
	Many people would feel let down if there were too many stories like that. Science is not precious, but we must fight to maintain its independence and integrity. The slanging matches that go on when topics are discussed must take place in the open. The public must know that there is an argument, as well as a consensual view.
	Controversial areas such as stem cells need to prosper, but only in an environment where the scientists are self-critical. Science is not just about certainty; it is also about uncertainty. I mentioned the case of Krebs saying, I don't know. I have never met a scientistthis may be a parallel with scientists' so-called arrogancewho could be absolutely sure that they had done every experiment and every control necessary to achieve certainty. That is what is exciting in schoolsteaching young people to be critical, to do experiments, to think things through and to ask questions, and giving them the opportunity to develop some understanding and some interest in science.
	Universities have a long way to go in how they teach science. Some of what is taught there is boring, rather than radical. I question whether the PhD is taught properly now, and whether post-doctoral fellowships are the way to do science, not necessarily because they are one-year or three-year contracts, but because in many quarters post-doctoral students are still beholden to the boss of the laboratory, who gets all the credit and the kudos from research exercises, whereas a vast amount of the work that is done in this country is done by postgraduate and post-doctoral students. We should remember that we need them, although the administrative work is done by the senior member of the team. In schools and in universities, there is so much more to do to advance a subject that is very exciting.
	We do science because we want to make life better for people and to have information that we can put into the system, not just in health but in other fields too. It is not always possible to devise good experiments, but we should give people the right to do that, and we should finance them to allow it to happen.

Ian Taylor: I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. I start by congratulating the Science and Technology Committee, of which I used to be a member, on its excellent work in producing the report. A lot of effort and consideration has gone into it, and it is a valuable contribution to our debate.
	I welcome the Minister to his new position. In my view, it is the best job in Government, although he does not have quite as much of it as I will recommend he should have had. Nevertheless, as Minister with responsibility for science, he will find dealing with these subjects very stimulating.
	Before the Minister gets too excited by his promotion, let me give him a warning. During my period as Science and Technology Minister, the BSE crisis was suddenly launched upon us. On the very day that the information had been revealed, there was an evening reception at Downing street. The Prime Minister was saying nice things in welcoming various Ministers until he got to me, when he said, Oh yes, you're the science Minister, aren't you? Look what a mess you've made of this. The Minister must remember that he will get the blame for crises in science that other Ministers do not want to know about. One of the problems is that although science is at the heart of decisions in virtually every Department, most Ministers are either ignorant of, or do not wish to know about, the implications of science and evidence-based decision making. That is one of the subjects addressed in the report.
	During the past year, I have been producing for my party a report on science, technology, engineering and mathematics. It is remarkable just how buoyant those subjects are in our universities. I want to make the Minister understand, in his new departmental role, that it was a mistake to put science in just with the universities, which are much broader institutions that do not just concentrate on science. I hope that he has more than his fair share of debates within the Department and that he influences other Departments, particularly the Treasury. It is critical to the future of this country that we not only do excellent science and punch above our weight in publications and citations but capture the benefits of that science as they emerge.
	One difficulty is that although we as a country are brilliant at providing ideas for the rest of the world, producing 9 per cent. of publications and an even bigger percentage of citations from a very much smaller percentage of population, other countries capture those ideas. The other day, I heard that one of the key people in the development of the new Apple iPhone was at Northumbria universitya Britbut the innovation has been captured in the United States of America. As we begin to compete in this world, even more so at the knowledge-based industry level, we will have to capture more of the ideas that come out of our science base. To put it crudely, we need to have the same esteem for engineers as we have for scientists, because engineers capture the discoveries of scientists and turn them into applications.
	My plea to the Minister is that he should not get corralled within the Department. When I was Science and Technology Minister, I claimed and exercised trans-departmental responsibility mainly because I had the full backing of the then Deputy Prime Minister. If the Minister is to make science count in Government, he will need an ally in Cabinet Committees.
	Other speakers have already mentioned the fact that some key decisions that we have to take in the years to come are very science oriented. There are disadvantages to that. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned the importance of considering the evidence on which a decision is based. The difficulty is that politicians often have to make quick decisions without the evidence. The BSE case was a good example. It was difficult to get scientists to give evidence to the politiciansone of whom was mewho wanted to make speeches in the House of Commons in favour of this country being a leader in stem cell science. We must understand that there are pressures on politicians to which scientists have to respond, rather than just saying, We will do it in our own time and the evidence will eventually emerge.
	Another difficulty in the relationship between scientists and politicians is what I might call the absolute statement. When in trouble, a politician is desperate to say, I'll do what the scientists tell me. It is very rare that scientists will tell a Minister exactly what he should make a judgment on.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of the general public are laymen in scientific terms? It is difficult for them to know what to believe. They read daily in their newspapers dire warnings, particularly about food science, the causes of global warming and treatments for illegal drug use. Very often, there is conflicting information, and it is difficult for them to know whether something is just the opinion of one scientist or a definitive fact on which they can rely.

Ian Taylor: I entirely agree, and that applies not just when it appears that fairly disreputable people in the science community are saying something, as in the confusion over MMR, where the scientific evidence was all weighted on one side and a lone operator was questioning it. The press, however, gave equal balance to him.
	It is difficult for the public to know quite where to stand, and it is difficult for Ministers. The report is important because it deals with the advice given to Ministers and the form in which it is given. As I said, that process affects virtually every Department.
	Energy is an area of great importance and food science is critical. We excel at food science in this country, but the public are increasingly concerned about it. If evidence is given in the wrong way, the scare is already in the  Daily Mail a newspaper that I would ban if I were a dictator, because it does more harm to public opinion than anything else. That probably means that I shall get a bad sketch. Actually, I will not, because there are no journalists presenteven if I could see them. That is typical of the interest shown in scientific matters.
	The report's key point is that we not only have to make Ministers more literate, but that the advice to them must be more independent and should be perceived as being so. I intervened on the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about this. I would like to claim that the 1997 election was just a matter of the public overwhelmingly deciding that I should not continue as science Minister, but the reality is that leaving the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the National Physical Laboratory and many others outside Government meant that the concept of a technical civil service went with them. We should consider that area carefully.
	Recently, I published a proposal that was widely unread because it was a press release from a Conservative Back Bencher, but it said that there should be a Department for science and innovation, with a Secretary of State responsible for it in the Cabinet. I know that the Secretary of State to whom the Minister reports is in the Cabinet, and the same applied under the previous Conservative Government: the Minister for science was not in the Cabinet, but the Secretary of State asked for briefings just before Cabinet meetings, in case something interesting came up.
	I will go further. Science is now so central to Government that a department for science and innovation should be responsible not only for the things for which the Minister is already responsible, but for the co-ordination of a technical civil service, and it should work with various scientific advisers in the Departments. When Ministers are dealing with an issuethe environment, defence or transportsuch a department should be a central resource whose advice is respected within Government. I would have included technology in that department, which has been put in another Department under the Prime Minister's reforms, because the two go well together.
	I have also advocated a move to smarter public procurement, which is another responsibility that could have been included in the Department. Sadly, I do not have the ability nowadays to do much more than issue press releases. However, I hope that the Government absorb some of the message that I am trying to convey because although, as a Conservative, I should like a Conservative Government in the near future, in the national interest, we cannot continue to wait.
	That takes me back to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). The public are ill informed. It is not their faultin a way, it is ours. Successive Governments have never grasped the need for more scientific literacy in schools. We are still struggling. Even according to the Government's figures, we are doing much worse than we should be in ensuring that every school child has some understanding of basic science and mathematicsby that, I mean making our children numerate as well as literate. We do not enable them to understand risk, and then we are surprised when, as adults, they are not scientifically literate and cannot evaluate.
	I did not think that anyone remembered that something had happened before 1997, but I am flattered because I suddenly noticed that the report quotes me. Paragraph 190 states that, as science Minister, I
	proposed a scale of risk which would provide 'a series of common situations of varying risk to which people can relate'.
	I called it a scientific Richter scale. We have a Richter scale in a different context; why not have one for science?
	The report goes into considerable detail, which I have no time to repeat, but we must find a way of communicating to a currently scientific illiterate public the way in which they should react in a set of circumstances. Let me make a crude comparison, which is contemporary rather than the best example. When the car bombs, which thankfully did not explode in London recently, were announced to the public, there was no panic because somehow, at the same time, the extent of risk that they should assume was communicated to them. Although the risk was high, other factors meant that there was no panic.
	We are lucky that, so far, a biological or chemical attack has not taken place in London. The public will not understand degrees of risk in something so invisible and difficult to grasp. Tragically, we know about car bombs and the damage that they can do, but we are ill educated about the consequences of a biological or chemical attack in this city. We must start preparing the public in ways they can understand about how to react without scaring them. It is a complex art and I do not claim that I have an instant solution, but we must start thinking about it.

Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that educating the lay public is not simply about putting complex scientific evidence and information into language and a perspective that people understand, but has a psychological element, which is perhaps not easy to pin down? For example, anyone who is prescribed medicine and takes the trouble to read the accompanying bit of paper, could decide never to take the medication because of all the possible side effects. I have thought that myself. However, as the medication has been prescribed by a doctor for a specific purpose, the vast majority of people will ignore the huge risks that might be included on the accompanying bit of paper and take their medication as prescribed. Psychologically, they know they need it, and a doctorsomebody whom they trusthas prescribed it. It is difficult to get a balance between raw basic science put in a simple form that people understand, and the psychology of the risks that people are and are not prepared to take.

Ian Taylor: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, but in some ways people are unpredictable in what they determine to be an acceptable risk and what they will not accept. I agree that some of those instructions make one's hair stand on endI do not have enough to stand on endand that if people read them, they would be confused or terrified about the possible side effects.
	The person whom one has trustedthe intermediaryis the doctor, or perhaps even the chemist, if one gets the drugs from a pharmacy. I am not inviting the Minister to wear his doctor's or pharmacist's cloak whenever he goes out, but there must be some trust between the Government and the public in communicating risk whenever it might occur.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for being generous and giving way again. Does he recognise that the lay public's understanding of scientific matters can also have a commercial knock-on effect? For example, tons of blueberries have been sold over the past couple of years, because they were thought to be a super-food that counteracted free radicals. More recent information suggests that they perhaps do not do that. One can envisage sales of that product plummeting and the commercial market being affected.

Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is right that food scares can create shifts in the market. When I was a Minister, I had to react to a headline that said something to the effect that Grapefruit is a killer. Not surprisingly, grapefruit sales plummeted. I looked into the matter and found that grapefruit is a killer if one has just had all one's internal organs operated upon and some of them removedapparently it is not terribly wise to have grapefruit in the week after major internal surgery. That might be specific to the patient who has had such a serious operation, but it is not a general risk to the public. Grapefruits eventually came back when the public realised that they were perhaps not at risk if they had not major internal surgery. It is difficult to get that message across, particularly if a newspaper headline has already done the damage, as has been said. The work then is reactive, rather than about putting a constructive case to try to explain the issue.
	My point, which I am sure colleagues will share, is that we must assume that things will go wrong in that way. We must therefore prepare ourselves constantly to try to explain the situation and put a positive aspect on it. More scientists should take into account the benefits of the public's appreciation of science in, for example, being awarded research grants. I give due credit to the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering for increasingly encouraging and perhaps even pressuring their fellows to do that.
	We are all in this together. If we want active stem cell research and, ultimately, commercial applications for the benefit of the public, we must defend stem cell research in this country. We have the salutary example of what went wrong in the United States, where the Christian right decided that stem cell research was a cause clbre and President Bush supported them, rather than science. Slowly that work is being restored in the United States, albeit at the state, rather than the federal, level.
	We must all be on our guard and we must all be positive. We must increase the amount of science education in our schools. This debate is not about that, but we must never forget that it is crucial. We must do more to encourage our universities to maintain science. The Higher Education Funding Council recently improved grants to universities for science teaching, but the funding is still not enough. I have proposals on that, but the nation will have to wait until my report is published to learn of them.
	Those are serious collateral issues in the context of scientific evidence, which we cannot take in isolation. This debate and the Science and Technology Committee's report are timely and, for the Minister, an object lesson. The euphoria of his appointment is now balanced by the burden of attempting to persuade his ministerial colleagues that he is the most important man in the Government.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), perhaps I should remind the Housewithout being invidious to him or to the Front-Bench speakers to followthat there is another debate after this one, for which there is no set dividing time. Speeches have averaged 27 minutes so far, and that might put the other debate at some peril.

Brian Iddon: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). I also congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), on acquiring the role of Minister responsible for science and innovation. I am sure that that is a great privilege for him.
	The report on which the debate is founded is based on three separate inquiries undertaken by the Science and Technology Committee. The first was on the ABC classification of drugs, and it has already been debatedin a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on 14 June. The second was on identity card technologies, and I hope that we have contributed to that ongoing debate. The third inquiry, on which I shall say more in a minute, was on the EU physical agents (electromagnetic fields) directive, which is a bit of a mouthful.
	The Science and Technology Committee was particularly interested in how the Government use the scientific advisory system as a whole to form their policies. As the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), pointed out, the Government claim to base their policies on the evidence provided to them. I should stress that we also considered the application of social science, as well as of the natural and physical sciences.
	I would like to say a few words about the Select Committee. Last Thursday morning, I was at the parliamentary affairs committee of the Royal Society of Chemistry at Burlington House. I am one of its parliamentary advisers, and a fellow of the society. Representatives of all the great learned and professional societies around the city attended that meeting, as well as representatives of the Royal Society of Chemistry. I want to convey to the House their utmost concern about the possible future of the Science and Technology Committee, to which the Chairman has already referred. They want me to tell the House that it would be almost a calamity if the Select Committee disappeared as a separate-standing, cross-cutting Committee which looks at all science, technology and engineering across Departmentsa truly cross-cutting Committee like the Public Accounts Committee. They would prefer to see it survive in its present form, rather than be subsumed into the departmental Committee of the new Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether, if we were subsumed into the departmental Committee, we could still enjoy a cross-cutting role? I do not think that we could, but he might have a different view.
	Some of the greatest problems that the Government are facing today need advice from our scientists. They include food scares; E. coli; foot and mouth disease; bovine spongiform encephalopathyBSEin cattle and its transmission to man as new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria; HIV/AIDS; the threat of avian influenza; substance abuse, in which I include alcohol and tobacco; the threat of terrorism and crime in general; the supply of energy; and climate change. These are all examples of policy areas that have required, and will continue to require, a scientific input. The current review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is another example of the importance of scientific advice in advising the Government on the way forward. In a recent session with the chief medical officer, I got the distinct feeling that scientific research was ahead of even his thinking in this policy area.
	In March 2007, the then Government chief scientific adviser, Lord May, published his Guidelines on the Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making, which was updated in 2000 and 2005. In March 1998, the then Select Committee on Science and Technology published a major inquiry into the scientific advisory system, which we have followed up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has already mentioned. A number of reports, such as Lord Phillips' report on BSE and CJD in October 2000, Government reports such as the White Paper Investing in Innovation published in 2002, and the Government's 10-year investment framework for science and innovation have strongly influenced the application of science in Government policy making during the time of this Government.
	The Committee has always taken the view that the Government's chief scientific adviser should be seen to be as independent of Departments as possible. Indeed, our report recommends that the CSA should sit in the Cabinet Office with a seat on the Board of the Treasury, rather than in the Office of Science and Technology or, now, in the new Department. We shall wait with interest to see whether the new arrangement will give a greater focus to science, engineering and technology, although I am disappointed, as are others, that the word science does not appear in the title of the new Department. Significantly, the head of the Government economic service, Sir Nicholas Stern, has his base in the Cabinet Office, but retains a desk in the Treasury.
	We have recommended that the Government's CSA work closelyperhaps more closely than in the pastwith the head of the Government economic service and with the three social science chiefs of profession. The Committee has always taken the view that there should be a chief scientific adviser in all the major State Departments. We believe that we were particularly responsible for persuading the Department for International Development to employ a CSA. He has been active and forward looking in his advice to that Department, and I believe that that has had an effect on its work.
	Departmental CSAs have been appointed both from within State Departments and by secondment from positions outside. Those appointed from outside usually work on a part-time basis, for three or four days a week, as well as continuing to work for their former employer, which is often a university. The evidence that we have collected suggests that there are advantages in seconding people to those positions from outside the great State Departments. They bring in a lot of outside experience, and they can also go back and work with their research students, enjoy discussions and raise questions about their work in government with their colleagues in academia or industry.
	Such outside appointments have traditionally been short fixed-term appointments, which has resulted in quite a turnover, and quite a range of advice coming into the major State Departments throughout the secondments. Our report commends the Department for Transport's model. Its CSA has been, and still is, an outside appointment, but a deputy has been appointed from within the Department to advise the externally appointed CSA on the advice available in the Department. We feel that it is important to run CSAs and their deputies in that way, and we recommend that other Departments adopt that model.
	The Committee also believes that departmental CSAs should be on top and not on tap, as the report put it, which means that they should be involved in all major policy decisions in their Department. We have collected evidence that things can go wrong if that is not the case. I shall come to the EU physical agents (electromagnetic fields) directive in a moment. In that case, things went terribly wrong because there was not full consultation. While departmental CSAs are directly answerable to their permanent secretaries, they should also be allowed to interact freely with the Government's CSA, and with their equivalents in other Departments, so that there is a free flow of information across government in the scientific advisory service.
	In my youth, there was a Government scientific serviceindeed, I almost joined itand the Committee strongly believes that it should be re-established. We have collected evidence that those scientists who are employed by the Governmentwe cannot find out exactly how many there are across the Departmentstend to hide their scientific role, because they feel that if they display their scientific background, they will not be preferred for promotion, which is rather sad. The civil service appears to prefer generalists to specialists, but we are dealing with some pretty specialist policy advice. We feel that State Departments need scientists to display their scientific ability freely.
	In recent years, the science base of the civil service has been weakened by loss of the laboratory of the Government chemist, by the transformation of the Forensic Science Service, by the creation of QinetiQ out of the Ministry of Defence, and perhaps in other ways too. There is a Government social research service, a Government economic service, a Government statistical service and a Government operational research service, so why, I ask the Minister, do we not have a Government service for the natural and physical sciences, engineering and technology?
	In all its inquiries, our Committee has always been influenced by the evidence, both written and oral, that we have received from a plethora of professional and learned societies and organisations. In engineering, for example, there are more than 40 professional organisations representing the different kinds of engineers across Britain. As I have already said, I am a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. It has become clear to the Committee that the advice of all these bodies is not being utilised to best effect by Governments. The professional organisations are there. They carry out many inquiries themselves, and all this advicefrom the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and hundreds of othersis available to Governments. I know that the Royal Society of Chemistry was extremely pleased last year when its council was invited to 10 Downing street for a discussion on the future of energy supplies.
	A number of other external agencies also advise the Government. We should mention the Council for Science and Technologythe top-level advisory board on science and technology that was re-launched in 2004. Just the other day, our Committee was questioning the present chief scientific adviser about the past and present CST and its role. No doubt a report will appear in the next few days. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is frequently cited as an exemplar of good practice in respect of its scientific advisory system on account of its establishment of an independent scientific advisory council comprising 16 members to support the work of the departmental CSA.
	Implementation of the Gershon review appears to have increased the Government's reliance on external consultants as sources of technical and scientific advice. Sometimes the Government's own agenciesand even in-house expertiseare ignored, while external appointments are made, which cost Departments a small fortune. For example, between 6 April 2005 and 18 April 2006, the Home Office paid PA Consulting 14,248,799.21 for its work on the identity card programme. I sometimes have nightmares wondering what the 21p was spent on!
	My own professional society, the RSC, has expressed concern over
	the use of private consultants by Government which has had the effect of undermining the traditional willingness of the scientific community to contribute to the formal consultation process.

Ian Gibson: Can my hon. Friend enlighten me about the number of scientists or outside groups that advised the Government on the recent avian flu outbreak at the Bernard Matthews plant in Suffolk? Were all those groups united, different or whatand who came up with the idea that it was a wild bird that brought in the flu from Hungary?

Brian Iddon: My hon. Friend asks me a difficult question, which I cannot answer, but I am sure that the advice came from a plethora of organisations. I have forgotten exactly which one was responsible for the advice about the bird coming from Hungary.
	As I was saying, the RSC was critical of the lack of expertise in State Departments, which often led to a lack of competency to frame the right questions to outside organisations or consultants, to recruit the right advice or to understand the answers provided. The Royal Society has fellows working worldwide in every discipline of science and engineering. What a resource for the Government to tap into! Sometimes the Government do, but even the Royal Society feels that it has much more advice to offer. In the USA, the National Research Council was established specifically to provide scientific advice to the Government through the National Academies of Science and Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council.
	Obviously, good advice is related to good research. In key policy areasfor example, supporting the ABC classification of controlled drugswe collected evidence that the research was inadequate to support Government policies and that the Government were not investing in much needed research in key policy areas. Academics will not engage in research for the Government if they are prevented from publishing it within a reasonable time frame. We also collected evidence that Departments were not publishing all the research data amassed, but only such that supported Government policy. Much of it was not published at all, which is clearly unacceptable. I should point out that academics are often inhibited from collecting detailed advice for the Government, particularly when they are not able to publish it rapidly, because they operate under the constraints of the research assessment exercise. Perhaps that is why the Government do not receive much research from academia
	Much of the legislationa very high percentage of itaffecting our constituents is now formulated in Brussels. Personally, I do not believe that our Government are very good at scrutinising EU legislation. During our Committee's inquiry, we came across a good example of a European directiveI have already referred to itthat will have an adverse effect on the use of magnetic resonance imaging equipment in clinical practice and research into disease diagnosis. I refer, of course, to the EU physical agents (electromagnetic fields) directive. If implemented without change, it will cause great damage in those areas.
	The directive was adopted by the European Parliament in April 2004 and was originally scheduled to be enshrined in law in member states by April next year. In preparing it, the European Commission was heavily reliant on only one source of advicenamely, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, or the ICNIRP. However, significant uncertainties still appear to exist around the scientific basis for the guidelines that were published on the use of electromagnetic frequencies.
	To produce an image, MRI requires the body to be placed in a static magnetic field while it is irradiated with a time-variable radiofrequency. That causes electromagnetic frequencies to be emitted in three different frequency ranges. The directive sets EMF exposure limit values, but EMF from static fields was excludedsubject to a review in 2009because no agreement could be reached on static fields. Although the EU advisory committee on health and safety was asked to consider an exemption from the directive for MRI, the request was initially rejected.
	In the UK, the National Radiological Protection Board advised the Health and Safety Executive on the directive, urging that the HSE should take note of the ICNIRP guidelines on which the directive was founded. A regulatory impact assessment was prepared by the HSE, but despite the fact that it was aware of the possible impacts of the directive on the MRI community, it failed further to explore its consequences. We could find no evidence that the HSE had consulted its chief scientist, the CSA at the Department of Health or indeed the medical royal colleges. In that respect, both the HSE and the NRPB acted in contravention of the guidelines laid down by the Government chief scientific adviser.
	Effectively, as a consequence of the lack of consultation with the MRI community and the failure of that community itself to recognise the significance of the physical agents directive on its work, the directive was cleared by the European Parliament for approval and implementation next year. As a result, if implemented without amendment, most MRI procedures will become extremely difficult or even illegal throughout British hospitals. Let us just imagine that. The European Commission was not fully aware of the work going on in the MRI community and believed that the directive would have little effect on the use of MRI in hospitals. Nothing, however, could have been further from the truth. Ironically, MRI uses non-ionising radiation, which is a lot safer than the ionising radiation technique that it has largely replacednamely, the use of X-rays.
	The fact that there is so much uncertainty about the directive's impact some two years after its adoption reflects poorly on the influence of scientific advice on the policy making process in Brussels, to which we are subject to a great extent. Lord Hunt argued to the Commission that the ICNIRP guidelines were widely accepted and followed. He told our Committee:
	We felt that there was no need for the directive because we already have these guidelines.
	Well, we have got the directive. I am, however, pleased to report the latest newswhich I received only todaythat it is now unlikely to be implemented before 2009, or even 2010. Two recent studies have demonstrated that the limits set by the European Commission are much too low, and are being routinely broken by MRI scanners in clinical and research settings throughout our hospitals. The results of the study commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive showed the problem to be more extensive than anyone had expected. As a result, the European Union's advisory committee on health and safety will propose an amendment to postpone the directive's implementation date.
	That is just one examplea very serious examplethat our Committee encountered showing that if policy makers do not take scientific advice from as wide a spectrum of scientists as possible, legislation may be extremely faulty. However, I am pleased that the Commission has accepted that the directive itself is faulty and will probably now amend it.
	It is a given that the Government can no longer ignore the advice that is available from all our scientists, engineers and technologists, especially at a time when Britain is increasingly reliant on their discovery of products that are, by their very nature, highly technical in production and highly sophisticated in operation. It is also a given that the Government must improve the structure of the way in which that advice is gathereda point made strongly in our report. The Government's response to most of our 69 recommendations is quite positive, but changes will be needed in future.
	Although we believe that Government must consider the evidence provided for them, we accept that the final policy outcome is likely to take other factors into consideration, which will depend on timing in the political cycle. Ministers will still make their judgments with the political consequences in mind, but we hope that they will rely increasingly on scientific advice as well.

Evan Harris: I welcome the Minister to his new brief. I think he will find it very exciting, and I look forward to discussing scientific matters with him both formally and informally. I have been my party's science spokesman for some years, during Lord Sainsbury's time and that of the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), who was in post for only eight months. He had made an excellent start but sadly, just when he felt that he had conquered the subject, he moved on. That is the nature of reshuffles. However, I wish the new Minister well.
	I must declare an interest. As well as being my party's spokesman I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee, and I was involved in this inquiry. I also have an interest in evidence-based policy making and in the outcome of the inquiry's recommendations. The inquiry itself was lengthy and extremely thorough, and our detailed report contained a number of recommendations. It was introduced very well today by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in a clear, succinct and focused speech. I think that all members of the Committee, and indeed all hon. Members, are grateful for the work that he has done so far. We also recognise the contribution made to the whole debate by his excellent predecessor as Chairman, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).
	As we have heard, the report spun off three smaller reports on drugs policy, MRI and identity cards. Unfortunately we do not have time to discuss them all in detail, and some have already been discussed in Westminster Hall debates, but one problem that the Committee identified was an occasional difficulty with terminology. Select Committees take evidence, but it is not always scientific evidence on which we would want policy to be based. That produces the sort of confusion that arose in relation to the drugs report.
	Of course, not all policies are liable to be decided on the basis of scientific evidence. There may be no evidence at all when an issue that is relatively nebulous nevertheless requires Government and political parties to make policy. Sometimes economic considerations are overriding, sometimes ideological considerations are overriding, and sometimes there is a manifesto-based policy. Those who have made a commitment to do something must have very good reasons not to do it. As the report points out, however, in all those circumstances it is necessary for policy makersboth in Government and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, in Opposition partiesto be clear about their reasons when they do not follow scientific advice. It is then incumbent on those debating in the political process to respect what has been said, as long as it is transparent.
	As the report makes clear, if a policy is made on the basis that it is in line with scientific evidence and such evidence is not published, insufficiently published or selectively published, or does not appear to back up the policy, Government and, indeed, other political parties can be criticised. Policy must be introduced with a statement that is honest and transparent about the extent to which it relies on science. I have caused trouble in my party by requiring such statements.
	I look forward to policy announcements from the Conservative party. I believe that the reclassification of cannabis from C to B will be flagged up in a forthcoming policy document. I should be fascinated to know what evidence there is that such a reclassification will do anything to reduce consumption and improve matters. All the evidence suggests that if cannabis is to be criminalised, it belongs in class C. There was no increase in cannabis use when it was reclassified from B to C, and that reclassification allowed policy to become more rational and more easily understood by those with whom we needed to communicate.

Bill Wiggin: That is a good example of the need to be careful about the quality of scientific advice. What concerns us is not the toxicity of cannabis but the message that is conveyed to members of the public, particularly those who are unwise enough to use such substances and who may not have the hon. Gentleman's wisdom and experience based on genuine scientific evidence.

Evan Harris: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the health risks of cannabis, but the classification of drugs is not based solely on health risks. Otherwise, as our report makes clear, we would have had strong words to say about alcohol and cigarettes. However, the message to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be assessed scientifically. Our report, which I commend to him, makes it plain that there is no evidence that classification sends a message, or that any message it does send has an impact. We could find no such evidence, and nor could the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. While it is a nice thought, it is not good enough to criminalise to such a degree the behaviour of so many people in a way that is counter-productive, in the hope that a message will be sent, let alone received.
	Both the Science and Technology Committee and the Joint Committee on the Human Tissues and Embryos Bill, also chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, are looking closely at scientific evidence. I believe that reports should benefit from science checks of that kind. The Joint Committee will consider the policy of removing anonymity from gamete donors, which is a very contentious issue. I hope that its report will make it absolutely clear whether the evidence suggests that it would have any benefit or whether it seems likely to be counter-productive in increasing secrecy and damaging gamete supply, in which event people would not be able to be treated and no child would benefit in the long run.

Brian Iddon: Is it not important that any evidence that is relied on has been peer reviewed? Some years ago, I was involved in attempts to ban high-dose supplements of vitamin B6. In that case, there were merely one or two publications of non-peer reviewed research.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman has detailed knowledge of that subject, and is probably the leading expert on it in the House. He is right to highlight that it is important that when the Government or any other policy maker produce a policy and publish the evidence, there must be a statement as to the adequacy and strength of the evidence. In many health care guidelines, grades of evidence are now attached to recommendations, rather than simply a reference. That practice was not addressed in the report, but the Government might want to learn from it.

Ian Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the ability to repeat data is an essential aspect of science? One piece of published work is not enough; there must be several different attacks on a problem, and several, possibly contradictory, papers must be produced. In such situations, the problem arises of whose evidence is better than whose. That is often part of the nature of science.

Evan Harris: I was going to say that that is part of the nature of science: the situation is never clear because there are always new publications that refine the current view. That is not well understood by the public and the media. However, we need not despair and blame scientists that it is not well understood; it is inevitable that many people who are not scientists do not understand that science is, almost by definition, about a lack of certainty. Non-scientists can often be identified as such by the fact that they are certain. Some religious beliefs will never change, regardless of what evidence is provided. However, the report rightly argues that we should expect the civil service to have an understanding of science and scientific technique, and that it should not be a disadvantage to have such understandingon the contrary, it should be shared. I was delighted that the Government response accepted the broad thrust of the recommendations and recognised that it was necessary to continue and expand the work that is being done to ensure that civil servants who do not have a scientific background understand the nature of scientific inquiry and evidence.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North raised the religion issue in respect of stem cells. People with religious views bring something valuable to the table: an ethical perspective. I also have an ethical perspective, which happens not to be religious. People can debate matters such as stem cell research, and where we stand on them will be determined by our principles and ideology. However, I urge the Government to be cautious about people who dress up their ideological viewsboth religious and not religiousas science, such as those who argue in respect of stem cells that everything can be done through adult stem cells and therefore we do not need to work with embryonic stem cells. That is simply incorrect. Such people must be asked, If it turns out that work on adult stem cells is shown not to work or not to be effective, would you then support the use of embryonic stem cells? Their answer is usually no. There is a danger of pseudo-science being promulgated to dress up what are perfectly valid ideological, religious or moral views. Such views have a place in these debates, but they should not be confused with science.
	The Government have been fortunate in having benefited from the last two excellent chief scientific advisersLord May and Sir David King. Their reputations in the science community and among the media and the broader public have done much to underpin the Government's credibility on science matters.

Ian Taylor: For the avoidance of ambiguity, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is referring to government with a small g, thereby including the last Conservative Government to which Lord Mayas he now iswas chief scientific adviser, and with whom I worked closely?

Evan Harris: Indeed, I am happy to do so. We in this House benefit from having the experience of Members, such as the hon. Gentleman, who have been involved on the front line of science policyMembers who have served on the Select Committee and, as in the hon. Gentleman's case, have also been Ministers with responsibility for science and have therefore received advice from such people as my constituent Lord May.
	I wish to raise with the Minister a couple of issues that were addressed in the report. There was a recommendation to do with the double-counting of non-scientific opinion. Scientific responses to consultations often put forward the science and then also sayas the Royal Society recently did in responding to the Government consultation on embryology, and especially inter-species or hybrid embryosThis is the science, but we must of course bear in mind the fact that there will be public worries about it, so perhaps we should be cautious. However, the anti-science or non-scientific evidenceI do not use those terms pejorativelyoften does not give any credence to the scientific side and says, We say 100 per cent. that we must not do this as it is wrong. Therefore when the scores are added up, there are one and a half bids for caution and only one bid for going ahead on the basis of the science. When there is considerable lay membership on scientific advisory committees, there is a danger that we get diluted scientific advice instead of pure scientific advice. So when the Government consider such advice along with that of other stakeholderswhich is the right thing to dothe result is a dilution of the scientific message. The Government recognised that that was a problem and undertook to do something about it. Do they have any further thoughts on that?
	I wish to reinforce points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), which were supported by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), about the future of the Science and Technology Committee. I should make it clear that some Members present have an interest in the subject as we are members of the Committee in question. However, there is a twofold danger in relying solely on a departmental scrutiny-type committee, regardless of how well it is chaired and does its work. First, there will be a tendency for it to be dominated by the university agenda, which is highly political. It is right that that should be so, as that is an important sector of public policy; it will flex its muscles both politically and in the media and by means of the institutions themselves. Secondly, and crucially, as with the Public Accounts Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, in terms of science and technology there is a case for cross-departmental scrutiny of Government and Government agencies because that cannot entirely be invested in one Department. I hope that the Minister has established, and will develop, that important cross-departmental role. I ask him to share his thoughts on this matteras far as he can, as it is subject to negotiation. Does he recognise the importance of there being a cross-departmental scrutiny role in respect of science and technology?
	I also seek elucidation from the Minister on the Government's policy on publishing evidence. Page 17 of the Government's response addresses the Science and Technology Committee's recommendations 34, 35, 37, 50 and 51. The Committee's report made it clear that evidence underpinning policy should be published. The Government response states that they will publish that except in respect of freedom of information and data protection legislation exemptions. If those exemptions cover advice to Government, that could catch all, or much of, the evidence that one would hope would be published when the Government produce a policy. To be fair, it should be added that the Government say that it is final advice to Government that would be caught by freedom of information legislation. The Government's response states in paragraph 25 of the introduction:
	Inputs other than evidence...will influence policy outcomes
	we have already accepted that. It continues:
	Nevertheless, where possible, the Government agrees that processes should be transparent and the balance of evidence exposed. Transparency may not be possible in reserved areas. Examples of reserved areas include advice that precedes a final policy outcome.
	It is not clear to what extent that covers the evidence or the view taken of that evidence by a departmental chief scientific adviser, because the evidence is collected, the DCSA considers it and makes a recommendation to Ministers. It would be unfortunate if none of that process could be seen, especially the crucial latter stage. It is not clear from the Government's response what their plan is in that regard.
	I shall not go into the areas of the report covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I strongly support his concern about the loss of capacity and, therefore, the need for a Government scientific service. I also support what he said about trials and pilots. It is welcome that the report made it clear that there is an onus on Opposition parties not to attack the Government for responding rationally to a pilot or trial that does not work. If a pilot or trial is ignored, it becomes early implementation followed by roll-out, and that could lead to a great waste of money.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North made several important points about the need for the scientific world to be quick on its feet. There is a dilemma between the need for rapid rebuttal and the need to ensure that the scientific process is not compromised by a rush to comment. The role of the science media centre has filled that gap to some extent, because it has experts on tap who, within the limits of their expertise and with care, can make a rapid response to a scare story, so we do not have to rely on the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences to set up a six-month working party to produce the definitive statement long after the story has taken off. The science world has understood that and that is why it funds the science media centreit can redress the balance.
	The hon. Member for Esher and Walton made some important points about scientific capacity in the civil service, the understanding of risk and the way in which the media behave. The first newspaper I buy every day is the  Daily Mail, because it is an excellent newspaper. Although I usually disagree with it on issues of policy and ethics, it transmits its message effectively and one can understand what is going on. Of course, its interest, and that of other papers, is in selling copies, and it will never have scientific accuracy as a priority. Nor will it be willing to recognise the problem that if there is one maverick with whom 99.9 per cent. of the scientific world disagree, the broadcast and the print media will tend to give both sides, which suggests to the public that there is a more even split.
	Politicians are in a privileged position, because they can think, take advice and try to find the scientific consensus on an issue. They do not have to jump on a bandwagon. MMR was handled correctly by the Government and I was pleased to support them 100 per cent. at the time. Some Conservative Front Benchers at the timeand I exclude the hon. Member for Esher and Waltondid not handle it correctly, because on public health issues there can be a high price to pay for political opportunism. Little could be done other than embark on the slow process of trying to explain to the media that the evidence for MMR causing autism simply was not there. While we cannot say that anything is 100 per cent. safeand the Government were right not to try to claim that, because that is also a dangerous thing to saythe approach had to show that the evidence base was clear. The fact that Andrew Wakefield is now up before the GMC on charges of serious professional misconduct in connection with his research is an extra factor, albeit many years later, that suggests that those of us who considered the overall scientific pictureand not just the newspaper headlineswere right on that issue.
	The report mentions the precautionary principle and the problem of risk. We came to the view that the precautionary principle was an unfortunate phrase. Indeed, the chief scientific adviser said in evidence that the word principle seemed to imply some rule that whenever there was a potential risk, the Government had to respond. The Committee were right to applaud the use by the Government and the chief scientific adviser of the term precautionary approach and to make it clear that scientific progress must not be stopped because of a small potential risk. The report went further and said that the Government should lobby within the EU to change the terminology and approach taken by the EUfrom the misunderstood term precautionary principle, which means different things to different people, to a much more fleshed-out view of what we mean by a flexible precautionary approach. I was disappointed that the Government's response effectively was to give up, saying that it was in too many international agreements and we would have to live with it. I think that the Government should advocate change in that area.
	In conclusion, I applaud the work by the members of the Committee, not including myself in this case. I also thank the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East for going into so much detail and clarity about the particular example of MRI, which was a good example that the Committee chose to take up. I hope that this important report will be one of a series of reports that the House will continue to receive from a cross-cutting Science and Technology Committee.

Bill Wiggin: I welcome the Minister to his new role. I shall endeavour to keep my comments brief, as I represent a rural constituency and the next debate will be of great importance to my constituents. I very much enjoyed listening to hon. Members' measured tones, and I especially enjoyed the introduction of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I also welcome the report. I am especially grateful for the inclusion of this sentence:
	We have argued that the phrase 'evidence based policy' is misleading and that the Government should therefore desist from seeking to claim that all its policies are evidence based.
	That is absolutely right, and I am delighted to see it in the report. I am sure that the new Minister will try to ensure that the Government take that advice.
	It has certainly been my experience that when a change in policy has been science based, the Opposition have not accused the Government of a U-turn. The example I have in mind is the decision that the Minister for the South West, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), took as an environment Minister to stop the reactive culling of badgers with tuberculosis, because the independent scientific group research showed that it was making the situation worse. Nobody criticised that decision: indeed, we welcomed it and it was the right thing to do, given the scientific evidence. Unfortunately the ISG did not go on to give the science-based evidence that Ministers need to make a decision on that biological problem, but it illustrates my point that Opposition parties will not jump on the bandwagon when the Government make a correct decision.

Ian Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the report was the Krebs report, and that the culling was based on scientific evidence?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is right: the initial report was on the Krebs trials, which was followed by the independent scientific group.
	I was also interested in the comments by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on biometric identity cards and genetically modified crops, and principles as opposed to use. That is an area where science has played an important part.
	In my experience, one of the areas in which the Government ignore the science is fishing quotas. Just before Christmas every year, there is a difficult conflict for Ministers to resolve between fishermen who want to catch more fish and the report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, saying that fish populations are too low and that it would be dangerous to continue fishing. If the scientific evidence being given to the Government is inadequate and they are ignoring it, they should try to ensure that the scientists look at the right things to give them evidence that they need. That is not happening at the moment. It would help our fishing industry, and others such as sea anglers, if the Minister, who was formerly at DEFRA, got that message across.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) talked about stem cells, and I was sympathetic to his comments. When people get emotional about this matter, they forget the medical benefits that could accrue to their children, parents or grandchildren. He was right to talk about the need to keep science and research in the UK instead of exporting it as a result of an unhelpful climate here.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about his ability to explain the microwave and about whether the public understand science when it is presented to them. He is right; this is a problem. We should not underestimate the general public. By and large, when they care about a subject, they are eager to learn about it, they want good information, they will take the scientific evidence at face value and they will believe it. It is only when there is conflicting scientific advice that there is a problem.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether we need a chief scientific adviser. I do not know the answer at this stage. There is always an urge to have a high priest-like figure to advise the Government and give the best information; the difficulty is whether that is a role for a single person. The hon. Gentleman's speech was interesting and I can only encourage him to go on spreading coffee shops across the scientific community.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) was an eminent science Minister. I regret missing some of his speech, which I am sure was every bit as good as I imagine it to have been. He talked, importantly, about the role of science in schools and how it is important for schoolchildren that more science be taught and that it be taught as well as possible.
	I noticed that the Government have three Departments covering scientific work: Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Innovation, Universities and Skills; Children, Schools and Families. Sadly, not one of those has the word science in its title. My hon. Friend talked about the importance that science should be accorded in government, with perhaps even a Minister in the Cabinet. I do not know whether that is essential, but his message was that the Government need the best quality information. That applies equally to those in opposition. He also talked about bioterrorisma subject that will continue to worry people and needs the best possible brains to ensure that we are adequately protected.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) talked about the future of the Select Committee, and I hope that he is right and that it will continue its excellent work. He also talked about the role of scientific advisers and their involvement in all dimensions of departmental decision making. That sounded eminently sensible and I am sure that they play a vital role. He also talked about all the different types of science and countered his earlier argument when he said that there were 40 different types of engineer. I felt that demonstrated the problem; if we want the best quality information, how do we find the man or woman who has it when there are so many to choose from? He talked about scientists not being used enough, and he was right.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East was asked a difficult question about the infected bird from Hungary. I intervened to say that we need a clearer picture of how an infection, which could have had more serious consequences for human health, could be spread around Europe quite so easily. The Government handled the matter very well, considering the facilities that were available to them. We need all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle if we are to qualify that opinion and to judge whether the Government handled it right.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East then went into a frenzy of mnemonics. He talked about the MRI community; I thought that was all about scans, and I was right. He then talked about the ICNIRP and the HSE and the consequences on the MRI community. I thought he had finished, but he then brought in the NRPB as well. I congratulate him and I am delighted to hear that the MRI scan is safe and that people can be reassured. I was also delighted to hear that the European Commission has reviewed its faulty directive.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) talked about policy makers being clear in respect of muddling scientific evidence with ideological evidence, which we strayed into in discussing cannabis. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) was on the Committee that dealt with the matter and he assures me that the hon. Gentleman was right: the downgrading of the message was not the key; there was an important medical issue. A debate that improves the quality of the public's understanding might protect people to some degree and, by definition, the Select Committee's report is helpful, successful and useful; I look forward to reading it.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about MMR. My children were born at a time when it was extremely difficult for parents to decide what to do. One of the problems that we faced with GM crops, and perhaps to a lesser extent with MMR, is the confusion that the public, parents and customers of GM crops facewho to believe. Why should the Government get involved in the debate, and what is their ulterior motive? That was particularly difficult in the debate on GM crops, as Lord Sainsbury was a key funder of the Labour party. All politicians are faced with the accusation, Well you would say that, wouldn't you? But that fact made it harder for the science to come through, and it continues to this day.

Evan Harris: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view about Lord Sainsbury, but the allegation, You would say that, wouldn't you could equally be made against Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. As membership organisations, one of their issues is to expand their membership by campaigning. Even a scientist speaking for those organisations has a huge vested interest in taking the line that they take. That accusation should be identified not only with industry and investors, but with pressure groups and NGOs.

Bill Wiggin: I do not agree; there is a difference between the trust one places in NGOs and the trust that one is obliged to place in the Government. The focus of today's debate has been the need to ensure that the Government receive the best possible advice. Ultimately, they have the power to decide and we have to live with the results. When the Government make a decision, it is essential they get it right. If the Government are thought to be influenced by ulterior motives, it makes it harder for people to support their argument. That is an important consideration.
	I do not know whether the  Daily Mail is right, whether Lord Sainsbury is right or whether the GM debate is right, but I do know that if one observes the debates it is difficult to understand them at the right level. I watched a programme on medical research and genetic modification. It was clear that GM technology has a vast role to play in improving the health of all people, particularly those in less-developed countries. I thought it a shame that we had not had that debate on GM crops. The crop that was licensed in the end was cattle maize. Why were we fighting a battle about cattle food when we should have been fighting about tobacco plants being modified to produce a cure for AIDS, about different types of antibodies being produced in cattle, or about liver transplants using GM sheep? That life-or-death science is much more important, but it was denigrated because the whole battlefield and area of debate was trivialised and, possibly, influenced by Ministers. That was a great shame.
	We must be careful about mixing scientific and ideological views. I might have muddled things, and I expect that I shall be bombarded with irate letters, but it is important that we make those differences clear, so that peoplethe general public or the Governmentcan get the best possible information. I hope that the Government will take careful note of the helpful report, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Ian Pearson: I begin by thanking all the Members who expressed their good wishes to me in my new role as Minister for science. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for introducing the debate, and thank him for his warm welcome to the new Department of Innovation, Universities and SkillsDIUS. I understand that Dius was the Roman God of oaths; I express a personal oath that science will run through and be at the heart of the new Department's policies. The hon. Gentleman will not find us lacking in making sure that science is regarded as being of the utmost importance to our Department.
	I am also grateful to other hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge that there is always room for improvement and that there are always lessons to be learned, so we welcome the scrutiny of the Science and Technology Committee. Before I respond to the important points that have been raised, I shall set out our general approach to the Government's use of scientific advice; I want to give a clear sense of the considerable progress that we have made as a result of the contribution of scientific evidence to departmental policy making in the past 10 years.
	We have a long record of commitment to the UK's science base. In the 2002 spending review, we announced the largest sustained growth in science expenditure for at least a generation, and that growth continues. We have strengthened departmental use of science and research by appointing chief scientific advisers in most Departments. We have strengthened the use of scientific analysis in policy making through the publication of guidelines that set out how evidence should be sought and applied, and through the code of practice on scientific advisory committees. We are now working with Departments to ensure that the value of those approaches is recognised and applied.
	Most Departments have published or are publishing their own science and innovation strategies. My former Department, DEFRA, has gone further by bringing together all its analytical inputs as its evidence and innovation strategy. That valuable step could usefully be developed across other Departments. We continue to review how Departments identify their science requirements and how they commission new scientific advice and science in general. We have completed and published reviews of the HSE, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, DEFRA and the Department for Communities and Local Government, as well as a first-stage report on the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. Reviews of the Department of Health and one other Department are also planned for this financial year, and we remain committed to completing reviews of all the main science-using Departments in the next few years.
	The foresight programme, which moved into its second phase in 2002, creates and explores challenging visions of the future in areas where science could offer new economic and quality-of-life opportunities for society or contribute directly to Government policy development. The programme reinforces cross-government working, uses rigorous independent peer review throughout its analysis and has a clear policy focus, and there are agreed departmental responsibilities for implementing the results. The recent report of the Select Committee on Public Administration, Governing the Future, commended the work of the foresight programme and its ability to undertake systematic strategic thinking to advise the Government about future threats and opportunities.
	The horizon scanning centre's programme, which was launched in March 2005, examines future threats and opportunities that might have an impact on Government policy and feeds the evidence into strategy and policy making. Its work encompasses the full range of evidence, including science and technology, and I was pleased that the Science and Technology Committee commended its innovative work.
	Looking to the future, we are developing a framework to measure Government performance in managing and using scientific evidence alongside other analytical disciplines. A framework of evidence on emerging science and technologies developed by our horizon scanning centre is embedded in the Treasury's comprehensive spending review analysis of long-term challenges and opportunities in the UK. As part of the CSR, we have worked closely with the Treasury to identify emerging technology clusters that have the potential to disrupt or enhance policies.
	I now move on to the individual recommendations of the Select Committee report, starting with the code of practice for scientific advisory committees, which we see as a key vehicle for developing the role of advisory committees. We are committed to reviewing and updating the code and seeking its wider adoption. We will take into account the Committee's recommendations, but I would also welcome Committee members' proposals for further changes. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, the public consultation was launched on 25 June and will close on 16 September. We will then publish the results and reissue the code before the end of 2007.
	We believe that Sir David King's adoption of the role of head of the science and engineering profession presents another opportunity to drive up appreciation of the value of scientific evidence across Government. In response to the Committee's recommendation, we are preparing plans for the chief scientific adviser to lead a campaign across Government to promote good practice and wider awareness of the value of scientific and engineering evidence in policy making across Whitehall. On a broader front, we are working with other heads of analytical professions to gather examples of good practice across all disciplines in government and agree ways of taking that work forward.
	We continue to deliver a programme of workshops and events to support improved performance in areas of particular concern; it includes more widespread use of horizon scanning, scientific peer review and engaging the scientific community. We have also worked closely with the National School of Government to develop the scientific element of the analysis and use of evidence core skill and to embed horizon scanning concepts in the strategic thinking core skill.
	The creation of DIUS will have a significant impact on the delivery of that important agenda. I am ambitious for the success of the new Department alongside the other machinery of Government changes. It will provide a strong, integrated voice across Government for effective investment in research, science, innovation and skills, embedding them into the heart of the Government's competitiveness strategy. The creation of the new Department will not mean any loss of momentum in the areas that we have discussed today. On the contrary, it is a positive development. Driving up the Government's management of scientific advice, risk and evidence remains at the heart of both the Government chief scientific adviser's remit and Government policy making.
	The route from science to innovation and economic performance will not be lost. It needs to be strengthened and more focused at every stage. There are opportunities for us to do more in those areas. I anticipate strong working relationships not only with the other two new Departmentsthe Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Children, Schools and Familiesbut more widely across Government. That has to be done within an appropriate regulatory framework that safeguards the environment and health. In developing that framework, we must listen to the public's concerns. It is important to get that balance right.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised several points in his opening comments. All Members referred to the future of the Science and Technology Committee. Let me put on the record the great value that the Government attach to the work of the Committee and the positive and constructive spirit in which its work has been conducted under the leadership of both the hon. Gentleman and his distinguished predecessor. Whatever arrangements are proposed through the usual channels, I hope that value will be recognised and reflected in future arrangements, and that there will be the opportunity and ability for science to be examined right across government. I believe that that is important, but I would direct hon. Members to the usual channels.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reinforcement of the importance of scientific evidence and risk management in high-profile areas, such as human pandemic influenza and climate change, and they are central to my own thinking.
	Turning to the lay membership of scientific advisory committees, which were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), the current public consultation on our review of the code of practice for scientific advisory committees will take account of the Select Committee's views, alongside those of research being undertaken by the university of Liverpool to address this very question. That consultation will also give us the opportunity to consider the recommendations made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for the wider adoption of DEFRA's scientific advisory council model, with which I obviously have a great deal of sympathy, because I have seen it working well in practice. However, it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the genuine consultation taking place at the moment.
	The position regarding a scientific adviser inside the Treasury remains unchanged since the evidence given before the Select Committee by Sir David King. I am sure that he and my Department will continue to have a very good relationship at all levels with the Treasury. The key point to make is that successive science budget settlements in tight spending rounds have made clear the real value that the Treasury places on science and its importance in creating the knowledge and innovation economy for the future.
	The hon. Gentleman also sought improvements in our understanding of the size and nature of the community of scientists and engineers. Although the common employee record can be extended further, my Department is also independently considering how it can work with other Departments to improve such data. It is too early to answer questions about the sector skills review, but I should like to draw attention to the experience of my new permanent secretary, Ian Watmore, who has spent five years on the board of E-Skills UK, the sector skills council for IT and telecoms. He is a former member of the Council for Industry and Higher Education, and Business in the Community. I am sure that this subject will receive a lot more attention from him, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will from me as well.
	Recommendation 17 of the Select Committee's report states that we should establish a Government scientific service. Again, that was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. The idea is that there is a need to provide a stronger professional identity and focal point for specialists in government from across the physical and natural science and engineering spheres. In our response in February, we acknowledged the reasoning behind that proposal, but we did not feel persuaded that setting up such a service was necessary to address the Select Committee's concerns. That remains the position today. We still feel that those concerns could be properly addressed through the actions that we are pursuing in connection with professional skills in government and the role of the head of the science and engineering profession, where we are making significant progress. However, we will keep that recommendation under review, and as a new science Minister, I want to do exactly that.
	The hon. Gentleman returned to the question of a central fund for research. The chief scientific adviser has been actively engaged by the Treasury in considering cross-cutting policy issues and how they can best be addressed in the future. In some cases, such as research and development to support counter-terrorism, that is likely to involve funding streams that support several Departments' objectives, and we need to bear that in mind.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the research assessment exercise and the potential for new metrics to inform its operation. We see such things as evolving over time. Again, it is right that they be kept under review. The position on the use of pilot schemes has not altered since the Government's response to the Select Committee, but we will work closely with other Departments in that respect.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the rather strangely named Cabinet Office consultation on consultations. As he is aware, that will come to an end in September, when we should be clearer about how that work has progressed. Certainly, communication and consultation are fundamental to the Government.
	In response to hon. Members who made valid points about how the media report science, I want to say that it is not for the Government to tell our free press what to write on science issues, but I welcome the activities of the independent Science Media Centre, which arranges media access to real scientists who can provide authoritative independent comment on topical science issues. That is a helpful development in promoting a good debate on science issues that is accessible to the public.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked for an update on how we are working with the media. Since the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, through the media emergency forum, we have continued to discuss with the media a range of risk-related issues, including pandemic flu, the fuel and power industry, and business continuity. The Sciencewise programme, which was set up in 2005 by the then DTI to develop public engagement projects that support key policy areas, has already committed to 13 projects, with a value of 1.5 million, on a range of critical science challenges, including brain science, stem cell research, nanotechnology and a range of new emerging technologies identified by the horizon scanning centre. Building on the success of the existing programme, DIUS is now developing an expert resource centre for public dialogue on science and innovation. As announced by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report in November 2006, it will be launched in April 2008, as part of the future Sciencewise programme.

Evan Harris: The Minister mentions the success of the current programme. Can he sayhe might not be able to do so nowhow that was evaluated? What criteria were used to judge whether it was successful? Or is it simply a hope that it was successfulor is that his own view?

Ian Pearson: The programme is going on at the moment; it will be fully evaluated, and no doubt all the findings will be published.
	I want to make a point about the Sciencewise strategy group, chaired by Professor Kathy Sykes from Bristol university, which is providing advice on the objectives and scope of the new expert resource centre. We expect to have completed its specification in the autumn. I would find it helpful if members of the Select Committee wanted to have a dialogue with my officials, and perhaps with Kathy Sykes and some of the others who are advising us. Again, we want to capture and disseminate best practice, and I am sure that we can learn a lot from members of the Select Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) talked of two battles: that of making the importance of science more readily apparent to the British public and that of communications. I agree with him that there are lessons to be learnt from some of the debates, on issues such as stem cell research and GM, where different public perceptions are all too clear. He talked about bio-entrepreneurs and gave the good example of a business spinning out and then being bought out by a major pharmaceutical company. Of course, that is one of the routes by which we can commercialise the new ideas that we need to encourage in our science base and ensure that they are not losta point made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor).
	I agree with my hon. Friend about the interaction between academics. Often, cross-disciplinary interaction can provide the stimulus to achieve breakthroughs in knowledge. Some of the interaction that we have at ministerial level, however, just seems to me to be like having meetings, and getting the balance right will be crucial.
	My hon. Friend also made a number of points that touch on the ethics of research, its transparency, the potential for commercial interests to get in the way, intellectual property and how ideas can be transmitted. In response, I should like to say that throughout history there have been examples of people jealously guarding their ideas rather than transmitting them to the public, but there is a real issue and it should be the Government's role not only to be a staunch defender of intellectual property where it has been validly demonstrated, but to transmit new ideas openly across boundaries, across disciplines and across borders, and getting that balance right is important.
	I agree with my hon. Friend about the important role that Parliament has played in developing the UK's approach to stem cell research, which has allowed us to play a leading role in that critical area. That is a good example of public debate.
	I thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton for his kind words and his sagacious advice as a distinguished former science Minister. He raised a number of points about boundaries between the new DIUS and the two other new Departments, and other Departments and the Treasury. I assure him that I will not get corralled in DIUS. I fully agree that science policy needs to go right across Government. He also made some valid points about procurement; that is another important area in which I want to play a role as the Minister with responsibility for science. He also raised the issue of how we can improve scientific literacy. I agree that that is an important area, but I want to highlight the fact that we also need to improve financial literacy and literacy in general. One of the great strengths of the new Department is that it will bring the skills agenda together with the innovation agenda, to produce benefits for all.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) talked at some length about the lack of scientific evidence behind some EU legislation, particularly with regard to the physical agents directive. I do not want to respond in great detail, but I agree about the importance of ensuring that the policy-making process in Brussels also takes full account of the scientific evidence, which has not always been the case in the past. From my experience as a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am aware of examples where I do not think that decisions are being taken that fully recognise the scientific evidence. My hon. Friend also talked about the role of departmental scientific advisers, and I hope that what I have said about the importance that the Government attach to the role will provide him with some reassurance.
	My hon. Friend also said that he thought that the civil service preferred generalists to specialists. I have heard that view expressed by others, but it certainly was not my experience when I was Minister for Trade in the Department of Trade and Industry and we wanted real specialists. Nor was it my experience when I was Minister for Climate Change and the Environment in DEFRA, where, again, the role of specialists in policy making was fully recognised. As I mentioned, DEFRA's science advisory council plays an important role and works very well.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon talked about the nature of scientific inquiry and evidence, and the dangers of pseudo-science. I agree with what he had to say on those subjects. He raised the issue of double counting and referred to the fact that scientists, by their very nature, sometimes express degrees of caution, whereas other people responding to consultations perhaps do not feel quite so constrained. It is the role of Government to make mature judgments based on the evidence that we receive in consultation exercises. We have to weigh the various elements in the balance, looking at the scientific evidence and public opinion.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of freedom of information and whether the Data Protection Act might prevent us from publishing full details of the evidence behind policy decisions. As Minister with responsibility for science, I intend to ensure that I publish in full the reasoning behind all key decisions and publish as much information as possible, without infringing people's rights or the legislation. There should be a general presumption of openness and transparency in all that we do. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the precautionary principle, which I agree is often misunderstood by many people. I want to come back to that, and perhaps we will want to discuss it in more detail on another occasion.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) is to be congratulated on his change of role. I look forward to continuing to joust with him, just as we jousted with each other from time to time across the Chamber when he was the Opposition spokesman on DEFRA. He summarised a number of contributions that were made during the debate. I take full account of what he has to say about science, the fishing industry and the importance of evidence-based policy making. Again, getting the right balance between the sciencewhere there is some uncertainty and a level of dispute, as he well knows, in the fisheries industryand mature policy judgments is what it is all about.
	The hon. Gentleman made a number of comments about Lord Sainsbury. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that David Sainsbury completely absented himself from all policy decisions in Government on the issue of GM. Indeed, I shall go further and say that Lord Sainsbury is widely recognised by all who know him as having been an excellent science Minister. He played a leading role in the development of the 10-year science and innovation framework for the United Kingdom and was instrumental in ensuring that the science budget grew massively over the past 10 years. I do not believe that anyone who has met him or talked to him would ever think that he would be influenced by ulterior motives.
	When the Science and Technology Committee published its report Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making in November 2006, it included 69 recommendations. At the time, the Government welcomed its conclusions and recommendations, and that remains the case today. There is still more to be done. We are not complacent and we want to do more to ensure that science is managed and used to best effect by Government. We have made a great deal of progress over the past 10 years, and we have made further progress since the Committee published its report last year. We are determined to continue making progress. As a Government we remain firmly committed to continuing to improve our use of scientific advice, our management of risk and our use of evidence to support policy. I look forward to the continuing scrutiny of how we do that by hon. Members.
	 Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4 ) (Consideration of estimates ).

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

[ Relevant documents: Third R eport from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session  2006-07, HC 107, on the Rural Payments Agency and the implementation of the Single P ayment Scheme; and Fourth R eport from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session  2006-07, HC 546, on the UK Government's  Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy . ]
	 This Estimate is to be considered in so far as i t relates to the Rural Payments  Age ncy, the implementation of the Single Payment S cheme and the UK Government's  Vision for the Common Agricul tural Policy (Resolution of 2  July).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	(1) further resources, not exceeding 3,201,338,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 438,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding 2,731,293,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid. [Mr. David.]

Michael Jack: May I say how delighted I am that at last, following on from December 2002, the House has an opportunity to debate matters connected with agriculture? I want to say at the outset how pleased I was that the Liaison Committee saw fit to recommend two of the reports by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committeethe report on the Government's document A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy and the report on the Rural Payments Agency and the problems that it facedas subjects for this part of the estimates day debate.
	In the light of the publication in December 2005 of a seminal document looking to the future of the common agricultural policy, my only regret is that the Government have not seen fit to hold any kind of debate on a document that was billed as singularly important, particularly during the remaining weeks of the British presidency, which is when it was produced. Given the fact that some 40 per cent. of European Union expenditure is still on agricultureit is a major part of the EU budgetit was something of a surprise to me and to the Committee that the Government did not choose to debate that report. If nothing else, it would have given the House, and those who represent agricultural constituencies, an opportunity to make a contribution to the development of the ideas for reform of the CAP. I shall try to highlight some of the points that the Committee drew out as it looked into that subject.
	I am delighted to see on the Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), and I welcome him to his challenging role. Before the debate started, I noticed that he was thumbing through the vision document. It might have been the first time that he touched it, and if it was I hope that he enjoyed his brief read of it and that he will go back to it after the debate. It will be very important indeed, particularly as we move towards 2008, when the European Union will take stock and give the common agricultural policy a health check. In particular, the EU will consider the major reforms that were introduced by the previous Commissioner in 2002, and thinking will begin to turn towards the reform programme that is scheduled to be introduced in 2013, when, effectively, the current CAP will come to an end. It all sounds a long time away, but as we all know, given the way in which the wheels of Europe turn, we will arrive at that point rather quickly. If we have not done our homework, we will not be prepared to lead and take part in the debate about shaping not only the future of Europe's agriculture but its rural policy. Our report touches on that point.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, even in a purely urban constituency such as mine, constituents must pay for the CAP through their taxes and through high food prices? The issue affects my constituents, as well as his.

Michael Jack: In his normal perceptive way, the hon. Gentleman picks up on a number of themes of the report that I shall discuss in a moment. The question whether Europe's current expenditure on agriculture and, to a degree, its rural policy is value for money is a central issue for discussion. As agricultural policy moves from being a question of subsidising production to a question of paying for environmental goods and the development of a rural policy for new and existing member states, challenging new subjects of debate arise.
	One point that the report touches on is on what exactly the money should be spent. For example, in the context of environmental goods, what exactly do the public want purchased in their name? In our report on the CAP and in previous reports, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee touched on that very point and asked the Government to try to evaluate and have a debate on the matter, to make certain that the use of public moneys is properly targeted. That goes back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins): the public who are effectively paying for such schemes through their taxes must feel that they are getting some value for money. Without doubt, the public enjoy the countryside and good quality food, but at the moment they do not have much of a say about the use to which public funds are put.

David Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friendas I will call himthe Chair of our Select Committee for giving way. May I develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins)? Is it not the case that the environmental goods to which my right hon. Friend refers are extensively used and appreciated by people in rural areas? There is a great deal of evidence that people in urban and metropolitan areas do not make sufficient use of the goods for which their taxes pay. Those in rural areas and landowners can provide access to the countryside; they need to reach out and promote access to the settings which so many people who live in rural areas enjoy.

Michael Jack: I concur entirely with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I will call him my hon. Friend, because we are friends on the Committee and we work closely together. In his normal perceptive way, he has put his finger on an important point. Next year, it is food and farming year, which in a way will try to bring town and country closer together. Some of the issues that he has referred to will then be the subject of more intense dialogue as farming reaches out to the urban population.
	In preparation for this debate, I made a listI do not claim for a moment that it is the definitive listof some of the challenges that UK agriculture faces. I did so because the other challenge of this debate is how to bring together two reports that deal with items that are different but none the less related. I listed the following points. Our, and indeed Europe's, agricultural industry faces challenges in relation to food security in a world where the distance that food travels is an issue, and where the transmission of disease can threaten the supply chain. We must also consider biodiversity, environmental responsibilities, animal welfare, biofuels, genetically modified crops, global competitiveness, powerful supermarkets, the survival of the rural economy, the reform of the common agricultural policy, which we are discussing, and the restructuring of rural policy. That is just my list and I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members who are taking part in the debate will have their own list.
	The only problem with my list is that the vision document effectively sidestepped many of those issues. It went down the road of developing and extending existing thinking and there was very little that was novel in it. Where there was noveltyand this is a further item to add to my listwas on the question of how farmers should be paid. We have moved to an era of the single farm payment, but previously there were some 38 different commodity regimes, each with their own individual payment scheme and different rules for farmers. The simplified method of the single farm payment scheme introduced a one-off system under which farmers were paid. Initially, that related to historic payments. Subsequently, we moved to payments relating to the area that they farm. That method brought into being a process whereby farmers had some of their subventions top-sliced to help to pay for a system of modulation for the development of rural policy.
	Our report on the single farm payment and what went wrong raises not only a series of practical observations on the execution of Government policy but some fundamental points of principle. Before I go into detail on that point, I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the work of the staff of the Select Committee. It is all right for the Chair to stand up and make a speech in a debate, but we could not do so if we did not have reports to discuss, information to dissect and analyse, and results put to us. We could not do so if we did not have talented people as our Clerks. Matthew Hamlyn began the investigation into the single farm payment for us and his successor Chris Stanton came into post at the end of the inquiry; he had to assimilate all the facts, and helped to draft the report. I should also mention our former second Clerk Jenny McCullough. Those three people played a crucial role, as did Jonathan Little, our agricultural specialist, who has moved on to new work with Natural England. Without those people, we would not have produced the two reports. I put on record my sincere appreciation of all that they did to bring them about.
	The report on the Rural Payments Agency can be summarised as a classic piece of Select Committee work. We were dogged in our determination to get to the bottom of what went wrong. We took our time, but we finally got our manas the Mounties saywhen we got hold of the former chief executive of the RPA, Johnston McNeill. In our discussions with him, we were able to get to the heart of what went wrong. However, we had already made our own initial foray into the subject; in its previous work, the Committee warned the Government that change to the way in which the RPA operated would be fraught if the agency did not have the right IT and computer systems expertise. Despite those warnings, given in 2003, there has been a debacle concerning a core responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That is why our report goes beyond the mechanics of what went wrong and explores fundamental issues to do with accountability in government.
	One of the core responsibilities of DEFRA is to ensure that farmers are paid a just price, and on time. That is about not just ensuring the survival of farming businesses, but making certain that the rural economy's cash flow is not disrupted, and that a central function of DEFRA is carried out effectively and efficiently. In the case of the Rural Payments Agency and the delivery of the single farm payment, that was not the case.
	The problem began in 2001, with the RPA change programme, and it came home to roost when the European Union agreed decoupling for the single farm payment on 26 June 2003. A year later, on 17 June 2004, Mr. Andy Lebrecht, a senior civil servant in DEFRA, told the Department's management board that payments under the new arrangements would be made by 1 December 2005. The die was cast, the expectations in farming were there and preparations had begun. By 19 January 2005, however, the Rural Payments Agency announced a delay.
	The ministerial response from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), the former Secretary of State, was to appear at the National Farmers Union conference and say that she was bloody livid about the situation. Although that was perhaps not the response that should have come from the Secretary of State, she should have been fully engaged in the decision-making processes that led to the problems that the RPA faced. She was the Secretary of State when the policies were designed and when the implications were considered, and she ultimately carried the responsibility for what happened in her Department [ Interruption. ] Perhaps she is listening to the debate, and we may have an unusual intervention by telephoneperhaps not.
	The way in which DEFRA went about introducing the programme was too much change, too soon. That is clear from what the Department has said in its as-yet-to-be-published report and from the information that the Department gave the Committee, which is why we singled out certain named individuals who gave evidence to us. We believed that they bore a responsibility for what had occurred, and I do not resile for one moment from the fact that the Committee's report put down some strong words about who was responsible. One should bear in mind the billions of pounds that were not delivered to England's farmers and the rural economy, as well as the losses to the farming industrycalculated at 20 millionwhich will have an incalculable effect on the cash flow of the rural economy.
	There are also the cost overruns to the Department. To look at the facts, the NAO said that DEFRA would realise only 7.5 million of the 164 million-worth of savings from the introduction of the single farm payment scheme. When it looked at the RPA operating business plan in late 2006, the NAO said that the RPA's running costs would be 197.1 million, with an additional 46 million on top of that, which consisted of a further 27 million in extra running costs and 19 million for new software developments, against an original budget of 190 million.
	If that degree of financial mismanagement had occurred in a public limited company, the board would have been out, never mind the chief executive. That is why our report had some strong things to say about named officials, as it was quite clear not only from our analysis but from the work done by the National Audit Office, which has now been vindicated by the Public Accounts Committee, that we had to probe who was responsible for DEFRA's failure to carry out one of its central activities. Those failures to deliver have led DEFRA to face for the first tranche of failed payments a disallowance from the European Union of 131 million. In addition, there is a contingent liability on DEFRA's books of 305 million. Not all of it is directly related to the RPA, but that is an indictment of failure, and that is why our report was couched in strong terms.

Mark Todd: One of the largest failuresprobably the fundamental failure in this projectwas that of risk analysis and risk management. Would it surprise the right hon. Gentleman that the former permanent secretary, who is one of the named officials in the report, chairs the body looking at risk management on behalf of the Treasury for the civil service?

Michael Jack: That person will certainly understand about risk, but I am not so certain about management. The hon. Gentleman's point worries me very considerably indeed. At the heart of this matter are the mechanisms that the Government put in place when they introduce complex IT projects. Indeed, when the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Select Committee he highlighted that very point about the need to look at issues in detail and have the right expertise to guide us forward. What was clear, however, was the flawed relationship between DEFRA and its IT provider, Accenture, which was taken on to make changes in the Rural Payments Agency. Then, however, there had to be a second and subsequent discussion about how the single payment scheme would be introduced. DEFRA decided that it would remove some of its staff in pursuit of its Gershon savings, only to find that it then had to recruit another 900 temporary people in the Rural Payments Agency to make the scheme work. The very people who had experience of dealing with farmers were removed as part of the change programme, only to be replaced by less than expert people. The Department had a rural information systema computerised system that was supposed to cope with the mapping and to provide those running the single payment scheme with informationbut it singularly failed. I could go on through the litany of failure.
	On the question of risks, it beggars belief that the Office of Government Commerce did not put the brakes on what was happening. Yes, it produced some reports and red traffic lights, but despite the mounting risks of failure that were pointed out to DEFRA, which had a finger in the pie and an interest in the running of the Rural Payments Agency, and despite a great deal of investigationI do not know whether the Department was blinded by events or by ministerial assurance that it would all be all right on the nightthe wheel fell off big time. When, at the beginning of 2006, Ministers were promising payments first in February and then in March, the Committee produced an interim report warning of what was happening and talking about the need for interim payments, but we were rubbished by Lord Bach. I remember him talking on the Today programme about the Select Committee being chaired by a very strong person, that Michael Jackhe's a Conservative. I resented the fact that he tried to politicise my work as the Chair to highlight the failures and danger points and what was going to happen with the Rural Payments Agency. In fairness to Lord Bach, he retracted some of those remarks when he gave evidence before us. When the wheel fell off, however, DEFRA had not heeded the warnings, and we now know what happened to the rural economy.
	As for who was responsible and who should have accepted responsibility, the head that rolled was Mr. Johnston McNeill'sit was the agency's former chief executive who was fired. Sir Brian Bender, the former permanent secretary at the Department, whose name was on the documents about the Rural Payments Agency, the DEFRA change programme and the agreement on the path forward, and Mr. Andy Lebrecht, one of the most senior civil servants in the Departmenthe sat on the management boards of the Rural Payments Agency and, indeed, on DEFRA's own boards and should have been the linkwere the people who effectively signed off what happened. Rachel Lomax, who was supposed to be an expert, was brought into the Department to provide advice. Despite all that, there was still failure, but only one person has paid for it with their job. The then Secretary of State went on to become the Foreign Secretary

Anthony Steen: Promotion.

Michael Jack: She got promotion, while the farming industry lost 20 million and DEFRA's costs overran, with all the problems that have resulted for British Waterways and the Environment Agency.

Peter Soulsby: The Government's response to the Select Committee's report on the Rural Payments Agency has not yet been reported to the House, so we cannot refer to it in detail. Were the Government in that response to seek to hide behind the argument that Select Committees ought not to act as disciplinary tribunals on matters relating to officials, or if the Government were to hide behind the ministerial code when Select Committees criticise the behaviour of Secretaries of State, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that would be a grossly inadequate response to the very serious issues, both particular and general, that the Committee raised about accountability in this case, and more generally, with reference to the responsibilities of permanent secretaries and Secretaries of State?

Michael Jack: Again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. That is why the importance of the report goes well beyond its examination of the mechanics of what went wrong in the Rural Payments Agency. There is a wider question that the House should debate: when a Department fails to deliver on a core activity, who should pay the price? I go back to what I said before about a public limited company. If a plc had failed its shareholders in the way that the Rural Payments Agency has failed the farming community, not just the chairman and the chief executive but the board would be out. Why? Because they would know in simple terms that they had not done what they were employed to do.
	I do not want to go beyond the boundaries of the debate, save to observe that if we look at many areas of Governmentthe Home Office and the Department of Health, to name but twofailed IT projects litter what those Departments have not done. Where did the responsibility lie? Now that we have a different Prime Minister, perhaps he will look at that point.
	When we examine the RPA's latest published business plan, the failure is summed up succinctly in a sentence or two. It states:
	The ambitions to implement a major change programme and simultaneously deliver a flagship new scheme (the Single Payment Scheme) proved not to be achievable in the timeframe foreseen.
	It goes on to say that the document covers the early stages of recovery for the RPA and outlines its strategy and business plan for 2007-08
	to meet the challenges we face to become an effective Paying Agency that meets its targets, responds to change and efficiently serves the needs of its customers.
	The process could go on until 2012, and as the Government's reply to our report already indicates, it will cost another 55 million.

Mark Todd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he share my view on the subsequent episode? I was greatly reassured when Lord Rooker was appointed to continue the work of recovering the disasters of the programme, and he deserves to be complimented on much of the pragmatic activity that he as a Minister has led in that task.

Michael Jack: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I recall, however, that Lord Rooker was careful not to go too far. At a meeting I attended, he came along and said, I've come here to make sure you know absolutely nothing about what's going to happen in the future until I'm clear what the detail is. So I learned from that that we had a new form of pragmatism in the Department.

David Taylor: Does the House agree that it is a great pity that  Hansard will not be able to reflect fully the right hon. Gentleman's mastery of regional accents in this land, with which he regales us from time to time in Committee?

Michael Jack: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments.
	I am sure we will continue to get candour, which is what is required. I observe in objective 5 of the business plan for 2007-08, on training, that the Rural Payments Agency hopes the outcome will be that
	Staff are clear about the Agency's objectives, their role in achieving them and motivated for success.
	Some of those staff worked very hard indeed, but they were badly let down by the management.

Anthony Steen: My right hon. Friend may be aware that part of my constituency is Dartmoor national park. The hill farmers there have faced very difficult times. Will he comment on the problems that will arise if the single payment scheme continues not to differentiate hill farmers and lowland farmers? As I understand it, if that were the case, the hill farmers would give up hill farming, and the ramblers would have to wrestle through 6 ft of grass to get through to the Dartmoor national park, which was set up in the 1940s after the war to give recreation and leisure to urban dwellers. They will have to be extremely fit, they will need scythes and they will need military dress to get through the powerful obstacles that will prevent them from enjoying the pleasure and solitude of the Dartmoor national park.

Michael Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations, but one of the problems that the single payment scheme had to cope with was exactly the differentiation that he mentioned between the upland areas and the lowland areas. It did so, and in differentiating as my hon. Friend suggests, it created further complexity in relation to the already complex use in England of the so-called dynamic hybrid model. I contrast the problems that we had in England in dealing with 121,000 farmers with the situation in Germany, where there were three times as many farmers, four different computer systems and 19 Lnder as the paying agents, and the task was completed on time.

Jonathan R Shaw: It is fair to say that originally there were two areas, but there was a request from the industry to add a third areamoorlands.

Michael Jack: Indeed, and there was also a request from the farming industry that horticultural land, for example, should be included. Part of the problem with the volume of work that overwhelmed the agency was the lack of appreciation by Ministers of what all that extra complexity, new land and everything else that they were introducing into payment for the first time would mean in reality. I will not labour the point further.
	I draw my remarks to a conclusion on the single farm payment. We have raised the important issues of accountability, bad planning by the Department, and failure to heed warnings by a Select Committee, particularly in relation to IT. It may well take until 2012 to fix the RPA and another 55 million will have to be spent.

Anthony Steen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. Will he accept from me that there is another warning that needs to be sent to those responsible for single farm payments? Unless they get the upland payments right, national parks will be places that people cannot enter.

Michael Jack: My hon. Friend tempts me into a debate on hill farming and upland activity, which I will resist. I hope that in his enthusiasm, the new Minister will be able to persuade the powers that be that the House should still, even now, have a proper chance to debate agricultural issues in a way that would allow my hon. Friend's point about hill farming to be discussed. There may yet be a chance when we turn to the second of our reports, which considered common agricultural policy reform.
	In summary, the Government missed the opportunity to put forward some genuinely visionary opportunities for the CAP against the background of the health check in 2008 and the fundamental reforms that will take place in 2013. The change of French President from Chirac to Sarkozy offers a new dynamic, but there is a problemin countries such as Germany and France which traditionally drive the CAP debate, there is a difference between the agriculture ministries and the finance ministries. The agriculture ministries are traditional. They are not minded to change. They stick to 2013 as the date, and the only date, when the CAP could reform itself. They wish to postpone the removal of the dairy regime and the abolition of set-aside land. However, if one goes to the finance ministries, as we did in Germany and France, one will find that our new Prime Minister is their pin-up because he is advocating an abolition of pillar one and a reduction in expenditure, as they see it, in terms of the vision document. In his role as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was their No. 1 trailblazer for reform. However, in France and Germany the finance ministries play second fiddle to the agriculture ministries.
	That is important, because when the Government introduced their vision document at the close of 2005 as a contribution to the debate on the budget of the European Union, and in an attempt to reduce the CAP budget, they failed to introduce it to other member states. In fact, judging by what we heard when we went to subsequent agricultural meetings of fellow European parliamentarians dealing with these matters, it did damage. If the Government want to resurrect their chances of influencing the direction of the CAP in future, they will have to spend a lot more time going out and explaining the UK position to our fellow Europeans, against a background of the feeling among the new member states that unless they are offered the same deal as the old member states they will not parley on any kind of change that will lead to a reduction in overall expenditure on the agricultural budget and a redistribution of moneys to the rural economy.
	That is why our report calls for the development of a rural policy for Europe. As we have heard, the public are concerned about what this money is being used for. Farming has some major responsibilities in terms of the environment and biodiversity, and of changeof turning the rural economy into a place where farming is not the only activity. As the vision document correctly identifies, only about 1 per cent. of employment directly involves farming. Much else can be done in rural England, as in rural Europe, to develop new forms of economic activity, but the document is light on all those aspects.
	We have recently been considering the new European Union treaty. The terminology of article 33, which deals with agriculture, is interesting. It says that the objectives of the CAP are
	to increase agricultural productivity...to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community...to stabilise markets...to assure the availability of supplies...to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.
	There is nothing about the environmental and biodiversity dimensions which now typify European concerns about animal welfare, disease or the competitive world in which agriculture operates. The discussion of the treaty has been a lost opportunity to redefine the scope and purpose of what agriculture is about. With our far more reform-minded view, that is something that we could yet still deal with. Our report lays out the challenges that remain in relation to Europe's discussion of the future of its rural economy. There is a need to conduct a hearts and minds operation in relation to Europe. Reform is in the air as regards agriculture, and the competitive pressures are there. Questions of food security must be dealt withthere are no two ways about it.
	The rural economy is something special, from the physical point of view and from the biodiversity point of view. It represents the lungsthe point of relaxationfor so many of the people whom we represent in urban Britain. The winds of change are blowing. Mrs. Fischer Boel has some interesting ideas on reforming the vegetable regime, and she has established common market organisations for all such regimes. There is discussion about removing the whole question of a dairy regime, which would set Britain's efficient dairy farmers free. The reform opportunities are there to make Europe's agriculture far more competitive and environmentally aware and to develop a vibrant rural economy. However, if the Government want to lead that debate, they will have to do far better than the vision document. That was a poor first step, but it may be the precursor to a bigger debate.

David Taylor: I rise with some relief, having been contacted three or four hours ago by the Clerks of the Committee to be told that the Chairman of the Committee was stuck on the tarmac at the airport in Florence and might not be able to make the start of the debate. Had I delivered on my offer to open the debate if he could not, the House would not have been regaled with the forensic performance that we always appreciate from the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), or his entertaining tour d'horizon of some of the main participants in the Rural Payments Agency saga, in particular.
	Together with my hon. Friendas I shall call himthe Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), I was involved relatively early in the process, in late 2005, when we both visited the Reading office of the RPA in our roles as rapporteurs, when we did some of the early fact-finding work on what appeared to be going wrong with the single farm payment system. I am happy to make one or two salient observations from my own experience, having spent, before coming into this place in May 1997, three decades in medium to large-scale public sector information and communications technology projects. I have always taken a keen interest in the problems that Governmentssuccessive Governments, to be fairhave had in delivering on large-scale systems of that kind.
	At the start of his comments on the RPA, the Chairman of the Committee said that our report was shot through with concern and alarm that accountability had not been at work in the events that followed the problems with the single payment system. He said that only one person had been sacked for his role in this affairJohnston McNeill, the chief executive of the RPA. However, given that the former Minister in the House of Lords was removed shortly after the saga started to bubble up, it could reasonably be inferred that there was a firm link between his sacking and the RPA system. It is odd that so few people paid the ultimate penalty. For example, the senior civil servantthe permanent secretaryescaped any blame, condemnation or criticism. Not only that, but while many people were being taken off on their career tumbrils to some far-off car park and summarily disposed of, he was slipping out of a side door and being promoted elsewhere in the Government bureaucracy. New terms could be created as a result of this process. When, in sport, people play a virtuoso sparkling role in any particular game, they are said to have played a blinder. The civil service equivalent is to bound up the career ladder from disaster to disaster, hereinafter to be known as playing a Bender. It is sad that that phrase could get into the English language in that way.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman might like to bring out the point that in his Committee's report the then permanent secretary praises Mr. McNeill as being by far the best of the applicants for the job, and refers to his leadership of the Meat Hygiene Service. If he deemed that a success, that, if nothing else, brings his judgment into serious question.

David Taylor: In my sad experience, people in the upper echelons of the civil service, and to an extent in local government, and politicians who are elected to those various organisations, tend to have a less than complete appreciation of the potential and detail of the world of ICT. In such an environment, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. The king who is often chosen to be a consultant or to be directly responsible for a complex large-scale project can disappoint in many ways, because people do not know what they are looking for. They grasp at straws. They are susceptible to the blandishments of the snake-oil salesmen who populate the large-scale software package market. That is a pity. The hon. Gentleman's own Government were equally guilty of that before 1997, and during the past 10 years we have shown that we are not immune to the same problems.

David Drew: I know that we cannot refer in any detail to the Government's response to the Committee's report, which has taken a long time to come. Given my hon. Friend's criticism, there does not seem to be much evidence that the Government's response has taken any notice, in any detail, of the criticisms that we advanced. What are his comments on that?

David Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. We cannot refer to the response in any detail, but I shall come to a criticism of the Government's probable response in a moment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to reiterate that the responsibility for delivering the scheme and advising Ministers on the ability to meet the timetable rested solely with the chief executive. To me, that sounds like a post hoc rationalisation, and as such, it is absolutely unacceptable.
	One of our main concerns was that no lessons had been learnthere I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I think that we shall find out that in the Government's response, they will say something like, Many of the lessons learnt have been fed into the Department's wider review of its governance of delivery. There is precious little evidence that that is true, and I am dubious about it. Perhaps I am an old pessimist, but I can foresee, in similar circumstances, a repeat of the problems that we saw with the RPA and other major systems, and I think that this Department, and other Departments, will not learn from the lessons that can be learned.
	We had two serious concerns, which lay at the heart of the RPA saga. The Chairman of the Committee referred to one a moment or two ago.

James Gray: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of accountability, which I think he is about to, I ask him to suppose that the Government's response to our extensive, trenchant and highly public criticisms of Ministers in the report were to be something along the lines of, The accountability and responsibility of Ministers are set out clearly in the ministerial code. The Government does not believe that there is any need for further guidance. If the response were as short as that, would he agree that that was a disgraceful failure to address the trenchant, important criticisms made by a Select Committee, and would bring the Government into some disrepute?

David Taylor: I would be surprised if the Government's response were along the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests. If it were, I am sure that when we discussed the response in the days to come, we would want to go back to the Department, and perhaps the Minister who is here today, for clarification, because it would seem to stand at odds with some of the new principles espoused by the new Prime Minister a few days ago. I hope that our Committee would do just that.
	Any response along the lines of, Many of the lessons learned have been fed into the Department's wider review of this Government's delivery, would be surprising. If the Government then went on to say that their arrangements should be fit for purpose, we would all give a weary sigh at such a clich. The phrase fit for purpose is a substitute for analysis and thought, and a poor one at that. Let us hope that the response does not say that.
	I was moving on to refer to the first of two of our core concerns at the heart of this saga. DEFRA Ministers selected the dynamic hybrid model in the knowledge that it was inherently more complex and risky, and one of our recommendations dealt with that. A related concern was that the amendment of the original dynamic hybrid model so soon after it was announced, by adding a third region, reinforced our conclusion that the wider implications of the dynamic hybrid model had not been thought through. I expected the Government to respond in some detail to either or both of those key concerns. In fact, however, they have not. Answer is there none. There is no observation, no comment, no response, no rationale, no apology, no justification, or even objection, to the points made. I found that rather disappointing.
	In the general sense, the Government say that policy development of the dynamic hybrid was inclusive and fluid. I think that that is a new phrase that will enter the parliamentary lexicon: inclusive, meaning that all God's children are consulted, and fluid, meaning that none of them are listened to. What emergesthe fluidityis a shapeless form that cannot be recognised or measured, and does not perform.
	In relation to our final concern, we asserted to various witnesses that it should have been obvious at the start that the dynamic hybrid model was impossible to deliver in the time scales flagged up by Mr. Andy Lebrecht. The date escapes me, but I think that the Chairman referred to it a moment or two ago. The RPA's record until 2006 raised questions about its ability to deliver. According to what rumours suggest about the Government's reaction to our report, they will say that it is clear with hindsight that the RPA's ability to deliver was overstretched.

James Paice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I am in a small minority, in that I cannot refer even obscurely to the Government's response to this report. It is quite obvious that most hon. Members have it. I know that it is for the Committee to publish it, but it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is obscuring only slightly the source of everything that he is saying. I suggest to you that it is putting a number of us at a great disadvantage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that it is not for the Chair to decide on these matters. I understand that a report has not yet been produced for the House, but as always in this kind of debate, it is important that any documents necessary for the debate ought to be before the House.

James Paice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I not right in saying that a Government response belongs to the Committee, and that until the Committee publishes it, it cannot be made available to hon. Members who are not in that Committee? In such circumstances, is it right for a member of the Committee to refer to it in debate when it cannot be accessible for those of us who also wish to participate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has stated the position as far as the Committee and its report are concerned precisely and absolutely correctly, and it really is for the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who is addressing the House, to decide how much he should use what is available to him.

David Taylor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in reaction to that point, I shall move on.

Peter Soulsby: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfortunate that the Government's response to this important report and the criticism within it was not made available to the Committee in good time? The Committee was not, therefore, able to report it to the House so that it could inform the debate.

David Taylor: That is indeed unfortunate. I have just looked at the date on the report: 21 March 2007. A quick calculation suggests that that is some 16 or 17 weeks ago, and I would have thought that an adequate time in which to respond. However, in deference to the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), which is fair, I shall move on.
	My final, core concern in the report relates to our observations about Accenture, the IT supplier of choice, and those observations are in the public domain. In the published report, which is available to the House, we said:
	Accenture witnesses appeared to have been well schooled in not venturing comment on matters which they deemed were beyond their contractual observations.
	That is a masterpiece of understatement, although accurate in its own right. It could be said that Accenture designed the brakes and steering system for the SPS bus that careered over the ravine, but has been exculpated merely by saying that it designed the bus to be unresponsive to the brakes and the steering wheel because that is what the customer wanted. It therefore asks how it could be held responsible for the design, given that it was delivering to the specification.

Peter Soulsby: I am sure that my hon. Friend recalls that Accenture's contract was worth something in the region of 54 million, and that when it gave evidence to the Committee, despite having been paid such a large sum and apparently being at the heart of the project, it tried to absolve itself of responsibility for the system's lack of delivery. I will not refer to the response that the House has not yet receivedbut does he agree that the attempt by Accenture to abdicate from responsibility requires a full response from the Government?

David Taylor: I agree. Accenture's role in the matter has been underestimated, and it should be held responsible in a more substantial way than it has been so far.
	In our report, we examined the Hunter review, which began with a study by Corven Consulting at a cost of more than 500,000. Paragraph 143 criticised that. The example is emblematic of the use of consultants. The contract was almost open-ended, the objectives were unclear and the potential for making substantial profits for delivering little was there throughout the process of using Corven Consulting. We need to get a grip on that in phase 2 of the Labour Government as they enter their next 10 or 12 years in office.
	The Hunter review stated that no structural changes should be made to the RPA that would jeopardise the target of achieving a stable SPS by the 2008 scheme year. It urged the RPA to focus on that target. I hope that that will happen. The process was to take seven years, with only 10 per cent. linked to the flat rate in the first year. It was always possible for that first year2005to have a 0 per cent. flat rate and to move to a 100 per cent. flat rate over a five-year period, thus leading to full implementation of the system by 2010 rather than 2012. If that had happened, disaster would not have been visited on the rural community.
	The Hunter review said that in the slightly longer term, beyond 2008, the RPA should commit itself to making the SPS application process by e-channel effectively onlineand that it would not be credible to make a commitment until the SPS was stable. We must expect delay until we have stability.
	Let us be a bit more positive. The RPA is in recovery mode. The National Farmers Union has supplied detailed and regular briefings on the topic, which are balanced, fair and helpful. It says that there is a long way to go but that performance in 2006 has been much better than in 2005. A flood of money was distributed in February and March this year, and the target of making 96 per cent. of payments by the end of June was met.

Michael Jack: However, there are still 20,000 farmers with 2005 payments who do not know whether they received the right money.

David Taylor: That is true. One of the costs of giving priority to the 2006 claims process was leaving 20,000 farmers in limbo, with payments uncorrected, and in some cases unmade. We will not know the effect on those individual claims for some months.
	The NFU acknowledges that the RPA is much improved and that better systems and reporting are in place. There is a greater customer focusthank goodness for thatbecause one of the main themes that came through from witness after witness to our inquiry was that under the previous arrangements, at least they could talk to someonea stable, experienced career civil servant or agricultural specialist in a DEFRA regional officewho knew something about the system.

James Gray: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the system is much more customer focused and that there is a greater readiness to listen to farmers. However, I was dismayed by a visit to the House of Commons today by my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Young of Pound farm in Purton, because they are among the 2 per cent. who have not been paid at all for last year. They have been missed out completely. They ring the RPA every daysometimes twice a dayyet they say that they are unable to discover why they have not been paid and what they now have to do. They do not believe that the RPA is customer focused at all.

David Taylor: That is true for a minority of the 120,000 or so claims. I was citing the NFU reaction, which is recognition of a greater customer focus. The NFU represents those making the 120,000 claims, although that includes a small number of people in the position that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Jonathan R Shaw: I should like to inform hon. Members that my noble Friend Lord Rooker holds his weekly surgery tomorrow in W3 at 1 o'clock. Any Member can go along with specific cases. He would be pleased to hear about cases such as the one that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has cited.

David Taylor: One of the most useful initiatives taken when my noble Friend took over as Minister with responsibility for farmers has been his surgeries. Many hon. Members have used them; they are an effective innovation, on which we congratulate him. Some problems continue: the RPA is still working with poor-quality data, there are genuine quality control problems at the processing end, and there is a lack of technical knowledge in the RPA of how the SPS works.
	The Government must ensure that the RPA is adequately resourced. We have experienced doing things down to a price, not up to a standard. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshireas I shall continue to call himknows that one of the early impressions that we gained from what we saw at Reading was that the place was full of contractors and outsourced staff, who were low-paid and poorly trained. The people who knew about the processes were demoralised by the large-scale redundancies that they had to endure. Even though the RPA would cost even more in the short term, money spent on that would be money well spent in the medium and long term. Of course, 20,000 or so 2005 claims need reviewing as soon as possible.
	My heart sank when I realised the RPA was to carry out an across-the-board update of its rural land register. Given all the problems that it experienced in the early months of mapping, and the appalling delivery of RLR maps in 2004, I am not certain that all that will not be repeated if the SPS system does not reach a stable state. The remapping must be done with great caution, but I advise, from a technical point of view, that it should be delayed into the medium term, until the SPS system, which it underpins, is significantly more stable.
	I hope that everything will be done in the short term for the 2007 scheme payments. Lord Rooker said that the objective was to pay 75 per cent. by the end of March 2008. We should go further and faster. I believeand the NFU agreesthat we should pay at least 80 per cent. of the claims by the end of the year. That is a reasonable target. The system is becoming more effective and the staff are becoming more familiar with it. Let us not allow change to disrupt that. We should accelerate the payments so that the 120,000 farmers and their families throughout the country do not have to endure again what happened from early 2006 to mid 2007.

Roger Williams: As the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, it is a great pleasure to debate agriculture on the Floor of the House. The Government and the Opposition appear reluctant to use the time available for that. The production of good, safe and secure food, the protection of the environment and opportunities for the public to enjoy the countryside are important for the nation.
	I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his appointment. I am sure that he will enjoy participating in a fast-moving sector of industry. Many changes have taken place in the recent past, and more and rapid changes will happen in the near future. I would also like to place on record my declarations of my farming interests that appear in the register.
	In preparing for this debate, I thought that it would be interesting to consider the farming industry through the eyes of the younger person. It is impossible for me to do that, given the stage of my career in the industry, so I spent some time talking to young farmers at the royal show, at NFU conferences and in other locations. The average person who would be expected to go into the agricultural industry looks at it in a despondent and unhappy frame of mind. Young people look at the returns and at the commitment necessary to do the job properly, and they see that the two just do not add up. When they see their friends and acquaintances going into other professions, they are discouraged from going into farming. Indeed, at a time when farming is being encouraged to be more business-like, to prepare business plans and to set out cash flows, young people were doubly disappointed that DEFRA could not deliver the single payment when it was expected. They do not want to do business with an organisation that cannot pay on time.
	The right hon. Member for Fylde went through a number of the conclusions of our inquiry, but it is impossible to set out the scale of DEFRA's failure in this matter: one only has to consider the other countries in the European Union and the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom to see how they delivered. They adopted different approaches to the single farm payment, as the regulations permitted. Some adopted the dynamic hybrid, some adopted an area payment straight away and some adopted an historic payment. However, almost without exception, other countries managed to deliver the majority of the payments early in the payment window, which extends from 1 November to 30 June. Most countries were able to deliver within the first two months of that window. The purpose of the window is not to spread the payments; it is to deal with the difficult applications that every scheme will throw up from time to time.
	No one would criticise any organisation or country delivering the scheme for being cautious about disbursing public money if there was a doubt about an application. There is no advantage to any country in holding on to the money. No interest accrues to the Treasury of a country, because the money is drawn down from the European Union as the claims are disbursed. There is, in fact, every encouragement for the money and the claims to be dealt with quickly, because that releases staff to prepare the next round of payments. DEFRA fell apart between the 2005 and 2006 applications.
	When we took evidence, it quickly became clear to me that the real problem was that DEFRA had decided to adopt a dynamic hybrid at the same time as the change agenda was being taken forward in the Rural Payments Agency. I can understand why DEFRA wanted to go for an area payment scheme, rather than the historic payment scheme, which would more securely decouple support from production. I have no criticism about the extent of that ambition. However, if DEFRA had conducted a risk analysis of the difficulties of delivering not just an area payment scheme or an historic scheme but the dynamic hybrid, that would surely have sent waves of caution through the organisation.
	At the same time as DEFRA decided to take forward a dynamic hybrid, change was taking place in the RPA. That change programme, if successful, was going to lead to a reorganisation and substantial savings in public expenditure. The two processes coming together was, I believe, the cause of the problem in delivering the scheme. Indeed, I would not be surprised if the Government said something along those lines in their response to our inquiry.
	I visited the RPA in Reading with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), as I call him. It was clear that it had been necessary to compensate for the reduction of staff there by employing temporary operatives. The training period necessary for them to become conversant with the system was such that some left before they were fully trained. It was clear to us that the mapping system was a cause of the problems, and one that it would be difficult to overcome.
	The relationship between DEFRA, the RPA and Accenture should be re-examined and lessons learned for future IT programmes, because the necessary engagement to make the most of the available talent and resources seemed to be lacking. Indeed, the lack of direct meetings between the RPA chief executive and the then Secretary of State was one of the things that seemed to contribute to failure. At a time when the project was in such trouble, that direct contact was lacking.

Philip Dunne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is little short of astonishing that the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency had only two meetings with the Secretary of State, one of which was on the day before he was suspended, when the whole debacle came to an end? What accountability is there when, essentially, the Secretary of State washes her hands of the whole business?

Roger Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. With failure on the horizon and the farming community in desperation about when it would receive the payments, it seems beyond belief that the Secretary of State could not manage to meet the chief executive of the organisation that was attempting to deliver them.

Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) and I have just listened to the former chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, Johnston McNeill, giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, which is one of the reasons we were unable to attend the debate earlier. On the question of where the Secretary of State was, I am pretty sure that she was steering well clear. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point about the relationships between DEFRA, the agency and Accenture, does he not find it strange, as I do, that there were two senior responsible owners, against the advice of the RPA, when the whole idea of having a senior responsible owner for a project is that there should be one person who is specifically accountable? It was as though the Department had tried to drive a coach and horses through the notion of having a senior responsible owner by having one for policy and one for implementation, thereby almost creating part of the problem.

Roger Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There seemed to be a lack of accountability and clarity about who was responsible for carrying the project forward.
	This has been a tragic event for the farming community. The farming business has lost about 20 million but, more importantly, it has lost what little confidence it had in DEFRA. If agriculture is to be successful in future, the Department responsible for it and the business itself must find a better way to combine and work together.
	I want to ask the Minister a question along the same lines as that posed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. Does he have any plans to bring forward the payments during the payment window? If not, English farmers will simply look at other countries and the other devolved nations in the United Kingdom and see themselves as second best, because they do not get the same service as others do.
	I would also like to ask the Minister a question about inspections. In the implementation of the single payment scheme, inspections are important in ensuring that cross-compliance is observed by the applicants, but they are often not well planned. There is frequent duplication, and they place huge regulatory burdens on farming businesses. Will the Minister impress upon DEFRA, the Rural Payments Agency and the Environment Agency the need to co-ordinate their inspection plans more closely, to ensure that, when two inspections can be carried out at the same time, that happens, so that duplication does not occur and farmers feel that the inspections are being carried out with a light but sound touch?
	The Government's report, Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy, was brought out in what seemed to be rather a rush during the UK's presidency of the European Union. In order to achieve a budget agreement, people were talking in fairly strong terms about reform of the CAP, but when the Prime Minister went to look in the cupboard, there was no work on the shelf and there was no report. This document has the hallmark of work that has been done fairly rapidly and without the necessary research.
	The common agricultural policy has evolved over the years from the time of the treaty of Rome, when it was built on intervention, through the MacSharry reforms that brought in quotas for breeding animals and for payments for particular crops. I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members here today will agree that in 2003, under the cloak of a mid-term review, we saw the fundamental implementation of the single farm payment, along with the decoupling. During that period, there have also been reductions in the export subsidies that do so much to distort world trade and such great harm to third-world countries. Export subsidies should be eliminated by 2013. It was the agreement between France and Germany that the common agricultural budget should be maintained to 2013 that led to the agreement on the single farm payment.
	The document produced by DEFRA and the Treasury lacks the political nous that should have been present for it to be taken through the European Union. As the right hon. Member for Fylde said, it seems extremely difficult to get this kind of reform through the agriculture Ministries in France and Germany. Perhaps President Sarkozy will have a different frame of mind from that of President Chirac. I think President Chirac was the only one who understood the European agricultural policy, and that was probably because he wrote it.
	The movement of funds from pillar one to pillar two is broadly agreed by all hon. Members.

Michael Jack: The hon. Gentleman refers to the effectiveness of the document, but the only measurable effect was a reduction in the money going to pillar two. Was that a good result?

Roger Williams: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There was indeed a reduction in pillar two expenditure in that budget. Given that the Prime Minister of this country believed in reducing pillar two expenditure, it seemed a strange result.
	The document is not explicit about the effect on the structure of British agriculture or the sustainability of UK businesses. With a huge reduction in pillar one expenditure, I sometimes wonder whether any agricultural businesses will be present to deliver the pillar two objectives of conservation and recreation. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who is no longer in his place, made a point about the difficulty of conserving upland areas using pastoral management methods of the past. He wondered how the people who enjoy those areas could continue to enjoy them if there were no farmers in the area. The Vision document certainly does not address that issue in any way.
	The document also fails to address the issue of food security, which it seems to imply is not a major issue to be taken into consideration. Given that the world population is about 6 billion, with 600 million either under-nourished or underfed, and that by 2050 it will have increased to 9 billion, food security is clearly a big issuenot just for this country, but for the world. We should ensure that all areas of agricultural land, here and throughout the world, are put to their fullest use in order to ensure that 9 billion people are well fed and well nourished in 2050. There are real threats to that, including climate change, political instability and the demand for energy crops. A new organisation known as the commercial farmers association has produced a pamphlet promoting food security for the future. It does not argue for supporting British farming through protectionism. Rather, it argues that farming in this country should be supported by research promoting a good balance between output and conservation.
	I believe that the Vision document was short-sighted and does not merit support. It failed to look to the future of farming either in this country or the wider world.

David Drew: I am delighted to follow my fellow members of the Select Committee, who are clearly dominating the debate so far. That is understandable, in as much as we have not had many opportunities to debate agriculture in recent times. It is interesting to note that two reports are coming along at the same time. I cannot do justice to both reports, which are detailed and critical, but I hope that the Government will reflect on them carefully. If they do not respond in print, I hope that they will do so in other ways and thereby try to point us in the right direction. I do not want to go over the same ground as my colleagues, so I shall try to keep my remarks brief and slightly different from those previously expressed in our interesting discussion. I hope that there will be plenty of time for reflection on the debate itself and on subsequent developments.
	I would like to start with the report on the Rural Payments Agency. The words disaster, debacle or even worse could be applied. I believe that the fundamental mistake was trying to bolt together the dynamic hybrid. Discussing the scheme with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), I described it as a camel sent into the desert with no sign of an oasis. It was a difficult concept and, notwithstanding all that has been said by those on the official side, no one has yet identified its genesis to my satisfaction. There was no consultation on it and certainly no consensus behind it, and not surprisingly it bombed. It is of course possible that in due course it will be seen to possess some logic, and that other nations will follow us. In fact the Germans did adopt a similar route, but as was pointed out by the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), they were better able to deal with the practicalities than we were, and we failed to learn from their example.
	It was a mistake to move to an area-based payment system while also trying, for a number of years, to retain an historic system. It was inevitable that that would raise questions about what could be described as the wedding-cake principle. If more people demanded slices from the wedding cake, the slices were bound to be thinner, and some would not be given even a crumb of comfort.
	That returns me to the fundamental criticism that I have advanced throughout our debates in the Chamber and the Select Committee. I believe that it should have been established at the outset which people were farmers and would be entitled to participate in the single payment scheme. That was never clearly spelled out, and the Government appeared somewhat taken aback when 50 per cent. more people than they had accounted for claimed entitlement. Five per cent., 10 per cent. or even 20 per cent. would have been understandable.
	I still begrudge, and will continue to begrudge, the money that should be going to farmers and is going to others who are not farmers, do not need it, but are able to draw it because of the crackpot way in which we introduced the system. That has made the position even more complex and has prevented genuine farmers from receiving money, which is unacceptable. I hope that the Government will consider a de minimis, because the very small sums that have been received have snarled up the system.
	I will not say much about the management of the agency and the IT systems, because Members on both sides of the House have already made plain that both were deficient. However, as the right hon. Member for Fylde pointed out, it would have been helpful if the Government had listened to the points that we made during the run-up to the agency's establishment. They were not criticisms at that stagethey were useful pointsbut they were ignored, and the Government paid the price. Many of us spent a great deal of time trying to bring about a sensible, positive understanding of what was happening, but Ministers pushed our suggestions aside and pooh-poohed our competence to make them.

Peter Soulsby: My hon. Friend made a telling point about the failure to predict the number of applications, but does he not agree that by the time the Committee was issuing warnings the number was known, and that even at that stage the Government did not listen to the alarm bells that we were ringing?

David Drew: Once it became clear that the number of eligible people had been drastically under-calculated, we quickly pointed out what some of the repercussions would be. Even at that stage, Ministers, if not officials, were to a certain extent living in denial. Our criticism should have been dwelled on rather than pushed away, which, sadly, is what happened.

Philip Dunne: Was not one of the Committee's warnings to do with the mapping system and the fact that many mapping errors arose as a result of using a two-dimensional mapping system rather than a three-dimensional one? In many areas, particularly along the Welsh marches which are well known for having three-dimensional fields, that has given rise to many foreseeable errors.

David Drew: I am not sure that I can answer that in practical terms, but it seemed to me that the system was sometimes fifth dimensional, as there were so many errors. It was particularly galling that when it got things right, it subsequently returned to them and got them wrong. There was no consistency in the information; it was a case of garbage in, garbage out. Sadly, even when the information was initially right, it was subsequently screwed up, which was completely unacceptable and led to people having no confidence in what was done. I could go into considerable detail on that matter; in fact, we did so, and the people who briefed us explained what the problems werebut, sadly, the solutions were more difficult to identify.
	There was not much vision in the other document even though it was called Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy. We swiftly identified that it appeared to have been produced not by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but by the Treasury. Therefore, it was strong on economics but weak on societal and cultural aspirations, which should be central in moving from a common agricultural system to, we hope, a common rural policy. It was, at best, a fudge.
	It was interesting that the Government again said that they had listened to, and reflected on, the views of many in the farming community. We attended the Royal show last year. It must have been better than this year's Royal show as we had sunshine; I am thankful that we did not visit it this year as we would have had to have worn our Wellington boots. We took evidence from ordinary farmers, and that was interesting as they expressed thoughtful opinions on what should be our future agricultural policy.
	We addressed in the report whether it was possible to have a common agricultural policy. I have doubts about whether a common policy can exist, and certainly about whether it can do so in a European Union of its current sizealthough I cannot complain about that as I supported enlargement. We addressed points of analysis and dissection, rather than of underlying philosophy. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) has trenchant criticisms to make of the whole concept of the common agricultural policy, and I share them. However, the Committee looked at how we might move to a different systemhow we might move from pillar one to pillar two.
	A key problem was that we led that charge alone. Although other nations might speak the language of wanting to move away from production subsidies, when push comes to shove and their politicians are faced with the question of whether to defend the important franchise of the farming communityit is less important in our country than in some othersmany of them fall back on defending the production subsidy system. Sadly, too many other nations take that position, and until they change their underlying opinions the common agricultural policy will be a dead duck, and the sooner we fry it the better.
	The document was short on vision and did not say where the Government wanted to go, even thoughto be fair to themthey had gone much further than other countries, as I have already said. The document did not make us feel as if we knew where we were going. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) said, it would have been good to have looked in much more detail at food security issues. As it is a historic document, things have moved on and we now have to face up to non-food crops and the implications they have for the rural economy. There were various issues that needed to be embraced and the weakness of the document was that it did not look to the future. It looked to the immediate problems that British farming faces, but we wanted to stretch out from that so that we could provide leadership to the rest of the EU. That was lacking, and therefore we missed a real opportunity.

Mark Todd: I shall concentrate on the first of the two reports, partly because my period of service on the Committee coincided with the start of the change programme that is commented on. I can recall both the interview of Johnston McNeill by the Committee and the discussion of the initial stages of the change programme. Indeed, the Chairman of the Committee recalled some of my expressions of scepticism about what was being attempted and whether that particular gentleman was the right choice to lead such a programme.
	The episode under consideration was undoubtedly one of the most woeful episodes in both business change and system development of the last decade. It has a lot of competitors, unfortunately, but it is certainly in the top two or three, if not actually top. Some hon. Members may not know this, but before I became a Member of Parliament I was an IT director, so in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) I am the person with one eye among those who are blind on some of these topics. My experience is out of date, because we are 10 years on, but I do have some broad knowledge of leading large system and business change programmes. Occasionally, I try to share that with the House, although not always with a great deal of effect.
	What I learned about this programme was a shocking level of risk analysis, which permitted a complex and extremely challenging change programme for the administration of any rural payments scheme. At the start of the process, in 2001-02, we did not know what lay ahead, but we started on a process of major change in the way in which payments of any kind would be made to the farming community, and we combined that with the introduction of wholly new methodologies for payment. Even the most primitive of analyses would have highlighted the hazards. I shall list only those that struck me from looking at the issue. They included locational change, substantial down-sizing of personnel and layers of system development. Probably from the start in 2001-02 through to the end, there must have been at least three system development programmes of various kinds to build systems that worked in delivering payments to farmers. Change was laid on change; when a decision was made on the process, there were further changes.
	There was also an extraordinary programme of inclusion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned. One landowner did not make a claim; I own five acres of Derbyshire and was told by my farming friends that I should make a claim under the system. I am delighted to say that I did not; that was one claim that did not clog up the system, but it illustrates how ridiculous the design was. I hold five acres, which I occasionally grazeI make a mess of it generallyand it has a footpath through it. Why in heaven's name should I expect a few hundred quid from DEFRA towards it? Yet that invitation was sent to everyone and I am afraid that not everyone was as self-denying as me. Not surprisingly, the system was clogged with tiny claims that must have cost far more to process than the sum paid out.

Jonathan R Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration. He has saved the Department some money by not claiming. However, I am advised that the EU definition of a farmer includes simply keeping land in good agricultural and environmental condition.

Mark Todd: Indeed so, and all member states grappled with the dilemma of how to deal with rather small holdings of an inactive nature. They did not attempt to handle those claims in exactly the same way. As I recall, there was a de minimis approach, which would have made it possible [ Interruption. ] I am seeing lots of nods, including, I think, from the Minister himself. That would have simplified the process and I would have commended that. It might not have prevented people from making a claim, but it would have made it much simpler to deal with them.
	Faced will all those layers of risk, the most obvious strategy was a simplification of what was to be attempted. We have just touched on one example. One would not have chosen one of the most complex models for paymentsthat of combining two different forms of data and then shifting it over a period of time. Clearly that would require a far more difficult design than a number of the alternatives. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), rather kindly, did not go into detail about the rather simpler approach that he must have enjoyed in his native country, which led to successful payments on time and without hassle. One might have thought that that would have occurred to people in designing the system. Instead of idealising where we might be going, a pragmatic approach of designing something of lower risk should have been dominant in the minds of the ministerial and departmental teams.

Michael Jack: Does this not raise a serious question as to the advice that was given to Ministers when the policy was being negotiated and the seeming lack of any advice that said, These are the implications of what you are agreeing to?

Mark Todd: One might indeed say that. One can only speculate as to what advice was given on the implications of making this already difficult process of business change more complicated still.

Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even if DEFRA had wanted to go down the dynamic hybrid route, it could have postponed that move for a year and simply used the existing, well-established schemes?

Mark Todd: The hon. Gentleman is right. There were many opportunities to make the process simpler, even in some of the idealistic choices that were being made.
	I add a further layer: even after the choice to have a more complex model was made, that choice was not stuck to. Instead, there were several flexes and changes, albeit for perfectly good reasonspeople said, What about this or that?, and changes were made. If choosing the dynamic model was almost suicidal, to permit wilful change after that point was actually suicidal and would have doomed the project to failure in any professional eye, although I cannot imagine which professional eyes were looking at it, because it is startling that the level of risk was not thought through and shouted from the rooftops for all to hear.
	I attended an Adjournment debate on the fiasco in the spring of last yearI think that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was therein which the responding Minister, who had taken over responsibility for the task in the Commons, read out a number of the changes that had been made to simplify the process of handling individual claims. I remember intervening to point out that surely many of those steps could have been taken right from the start. One issue was the obsessive pursuit of tiny, trivial errors within a claim, relating to the precise area of the claim and other such matters. Those steps were not demanded by EU law; we had imposed them, in our usual, determined attempt to set a platinum standard for our administration of a system in this country. It was good of the Minister to be so candid about the changes that were being made to make it simpler to pay farmers, but it did lead one to wonder why anyone would design a system containing that kind of obsession, which would again accentuate the cost of the process and the risk of failure.
	The National Audit Office report is useful in cataloguing the review board's reports on risk and the gateway reviews of the Office of Government Commerce. I do not know what that showed observers within the Department, but outside the Department, it painted an alarming picture of repetitive emphasis on risk and the difficulty of maintaining the project to deliver payments to farmers on course and on budget. No one with even a cursory knowledge of the reporting mechanisms for the project would have found it surprising that it was running into desperate difficulty and crisis. One can only wonder what those who received the documents ever did with thema point to which I shall return briefly.
	The OGC may not be above criticism, and the Select Committee correctly highlighted some possible areas where it went wrong, to which I add one from a more technical perspective. I do not think that the OGC looked properly at the balance between business changethe human process side of getting people to do something in a particular wayand the system development element, which would allow those people to do those tasks more readily. In business change, those two elements are a seamless activity; to treat them in a discrete way, as the OGC does, to some extent, by saying, This is a systems project, risks the possibility of grave management error. The OGC analysis does not highlight firmly enough some of the failures regarding how human beings were expected to do certain tasks.
	So what are we going to do about this? What do we learn? First, it should be clear that reports that show such a risk should not merely be owned within the Department to which they are written. It is quite obvious that Departments have widely varying competences for managing major projects, and this Department had a very low competence. I have had some unkind exchanges with the Department's former permanent secretary about his apparent lack of knowledge in this area. I did not think it was a good sign when he was first interviewed on information systems issues, and I do not think that he was well equipped to be a challenging leader of a Department going through such a process of technology-enabled change. So this should have been shared more widely.
	Secondly, we need to be constantly aware that these are not systems projects: this is a business change programme, starting way, way back. There is a long history, and it needs to be seen as a totality. We develop systems to help people to do a job betterthey are not there for their own purposesand we need to understand the process of managing the human beings far more in some ways than we need to be obsessed with the details of the technologies being used.

David Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and near neighbour for giving way. He has been talking about the human impact of the changes that were taking place. Does he recall the figures? Of the 3,500 staff in the Rural Payments Agency, it was planned that 1,600almost halfwere to lose their jobs during the change programme process. That is likely to have a seriously deleterious effect on morale, is it not?

Mark Todd: Indeed so. I accept that entirely.
	There are other areas to focus on, the first of which I have touched on. When people define what they are doing, the project management must be robust in resisting change. To permit constant adjustment in a major project builds risk every time that it happens, and I see that mistake repeated endlessly in such systems and process change projects.
	The final point I want to make is that change management is a skill, and when we appoint people to lead programmes of major change, we must be aware of the challenges and the tasks that they face. I cannot believe that enough thought was given to the capabilities of the individuals who were asked to lead this project when they were appointed. These are not trivial tasks of normal, ongoing senior management; they require a level of human leadership, technology awareness and project management that very few people have, and those mistakes were innate to the project right from the beginning.

Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment, and I look forward to many future debates with him on these and other matters.
	I want to address the broad issue of the CAP, and the Select Committee's fourth report refers to the Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy. I have spoken several times in the Chamber about the CAP and have made many of the same points before, and I think that they are still valid: the CAP is nonsense and should have been abandoned a long time ago. I hope that it will be abandoned and replaced with a much more sensible agriculture policy. That is the broad thrust of the second relevant document. It may have been written in the Treasury, but perhaps the Treasury has got it right. It talks about the vision for the CAP, but perhaps CAP emerging from the darkness or some such title would have been more appropriate; vision sounds rather too exciting.
	To go back in time to 1980, when I wrote my first policy paper on the CAP, I suggested at that time that it ought to be abolished. I have not changed my view in all that time, and I have written many further papers. I recall, among other things, a substantial report by the National Consumer Council in the 1980s, which said how bad and damaging the CAP was, particularly for British consumers. Since then, I have participated in debates in the Chamber and I have made the point many times in European Standing Committees. More recently, I have made it in the European Scrutiny Committee, where we recently interviewed the former Foreign Secretary.
	If one repeats a message that has some common sense at its heart, eventually it is taken notice of, but it takes a long time and many voices. Mine is just one voice. In the recent debates about international trade, the righteous anger of the poorer nations, which have been so savagely affected by the developed nations' protectionist policies in agriculture, is starting to have some effect. Abolition of the CAP is the way forward.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is generous to give way, considering that I have just come into the Chamber. While he is reminiscing, does he recall that the Government's policy on the EU budget was three-pronged? First, they wanted to limit its size as far as possible; secondly, they wanted fundamental reform of the CAP; and thirdly, they wanted to retain the rebate. Is he sad that there has been abject failure on all three counts?

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall come on to some of those points. I will make at least one of them quite strongly later, but I do not have much time, so if Members will forgive me I will plough onwards.
	The first sentence in the summary of the report states:
	The objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy...have remained unchanged for...50 years and are now an anachronism.
	They were an anachronism even quite a long time ago, and they certainly are now. That is an understatement. The fact is that the effect that the CAP has had both on the British people and on the rest of the world has been a disgrace. The Government's Vision paper says that they look towards an agricultural industry that does not rely on subsidies or protection. That is almost the opposite of the CAP. I would not go quite that far, because it is legitimate for nation statesmember states of the European Unionto subsidise agriculture selectively where appropriate for all sorts of social reasons, and to ensure security of supply for our own food. There are reasons to subsidise and sometimes to protect, but that should be done at national level, because the agricultural systems in every country in the European Union are quite different. We are one of the least agricultural countries in terms of the size of the industry, but our industry is still important.

Roger Williams: If we had different forms of support in different countries, how could we have a common market and free trade between the countries?

Kelvin Hopkins: By definition, if one has some degree of protection, that is not quite free trade. We have absolutely no free trade in agriculture at the moment. I am not suggesting that we should have free trade in agriculture or that we should take away all subsidies and all controls. It is a fundamental industry, and there are all sorts of strategic reasons, as well as social reasons, for wanting to sustain it.
	We had the Doha round, following which there was very little change, and the UK presidency last year, when again there was an attempt to get some sort of change after President Chirac attacked Britain over our rebate, following his failure to win his referendum. He wanted to lash out at somebody, so he lashed out at us. I suggested in the ChamberI think that I was the firstthat the Prime Minister ought to say, Okay, quid pro quo: you get rid of the CAP and we'll forget about our rebate. We would not need a rebate if there was no CAP. Of course, that did not happen. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister agreed to a settlement with almost no change in the CAP and a substantial increase in our net contribution to the European budget for the future. It was such a poor settlement that even  The Economist was moved to say that no settlement would have been better than that settlement.
	The argument was that we should help eastern Europe. I am happy to help poorer nations, and if we have to have fiscal transfers from the richer nations to the poorer nations, that is fine, but they should be open and above board so that we know what we are doing. What we have through the CAP is, sometimes, fiscal transfers from rich countries to richer countries, such as Denmark. That is not right. If we are going to give assistance to the poorer nations of the EU, we should do so on a simple basis so that contributions and receipts are proportionate to the relative prosperity of different nations. That would be a fair system, and I have suggested it many times in debates. Indeed, about a year ago, I noticed in the small print of one European document that was debated in the Chamber that that proposal was specifically rejected. I do not know whether it was just my suggestion that had been rejected, whether the message had been picked up, or whether other people, too, were articulating what, to me, was a sensible proposal.
	The cost of the CAP to the UK is enormous. As a result of the settlement last year, our net contribution will go up from 4.7 billion in 2007 to between 6 billion and 7 billion in 2013. We can still subsidise our own agriculture, and we will be much better off in Exchequer contributions. Without the rebate, we would pay 12 billion this year, increasing to 20 billion by 2013, so the rebate still makes a difference. At the same time, however, we are making a substantial net contribution simply because of the cost of the CAP. Food prices are important, too. I speak as a representative of a purely urban constituencyI have no rural interests at allbut my constituents have a strong interest in the CAP, because they pay vast sums of money in higher food prices every year. It is estimated that the CAP costs 15 billion a year extra in food prices to consumers in Britain250 per person, or 1,000 for a family of four. For some families in my constituency that is a lot of money. It might not mean so much to more affluent people, but to some people in my constituency it means a great deal. If we want to change the net fiscal transfers, let us do so on a much fairer basis.
	The Select Committee report says the Government should
	direct the debate towards scrapping the existing CAP and replacing it with a 'Rural Policy for the European Union'.
	Fine; we have made progress, if the Select Committee is urging the Government to proceed in that direction. I absolutely agree. The rural policy has not been specifically defined, but the repatriation of agricultural policy could give us a very good rural policy and save us vast sums of money in the process. It would be fairer, too, to the developing world, which produces food much more cheaply than we can. We could import food from developing countries, rather than having to choose more expensively produced food from the EU.
	We have a problem, because the UK is constantly talking about reform, but other countries in the EU are constantly resisting it. Perhaps that is partly because they benefit a great deal from the CAPit is a disbenefit for usbut they appreciate, too, the fact that it is part of the glue that holds the European Union in its current tight arrangement. I would like to seeI have said so many times, and many Members agreea much looser arrangement in the EU of independent member states co-operating on a voluntary basis for mutual benefit, instead of something governed by bureaucracy from the centre, and by a budget over which we have very little control.
	May I read a final quotation from the report to show the problem? On page 8, the report cites continental politicians who have commented on Britain, and says that a
	German farm leader accused the UK government of 'poisoning the political atmosphere' in 2005 with its constant attacks on the CAP.
	If that is the tone, even raising the issue is Don't mention the war stuff. Unfortunately, the softly-softly approach advocated by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) will not work.
	We are the country most likely to launch reform, so we must drive it through. We must set a date by which we expect the CAP to be abandoned and replaced by a more sensible approach to agricultural policy in Europeand, indeed, in the rest of the world. No other country will take the lead; we have to take it, and we are best placed to do so, because we suffer discrimination and disbenefit as a result of the CAP. It is therefore our job to do it.

James Paice: I declare my interest, which is set out in the Register of Members' Interests, minuscule though it is. I confess that I did not have the willpower of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd)

Mark Todd: You own a bit more!

James Paice: Not a lot more.
	May I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), to his first Front-Bench post? I know that he has been a Whip, but this is his first ministerial position. If this is his first outing as Lord Rooker's spokesman on Earth, we look forward to further discussions.
	I congratulate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on producing two excellent reports. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) said, it is a great shame that the Government's responses, which I understand have been forwarded to the Committee, were not produced in time for the Committee to publish them. As a result, the House cannot consider the responses tonight. It would be wrong of me to seek to repeat all the points made by the many hon. Members of all parties who have spoken. It is fascinating that all the Government Back Benchers who spoke on the report on the Rural Payments Agency totally endorsed the report's criticism. As has been said, that criticism is extremely trenchant. When a Select Committee, acting unanimously, uses adjectives of the sort found in the report, it demonstrates how serious the situation is.
	The hon. Member for South Derbyshire, using his professional knowledge, explained to the House where many things went wrong in the management of the change, and the management of the delivery of the single payment system. The problems with the SPS started with the mid-term review. I want to make it clear that the Opposition supported the principles behind the changes, and the principle of decoupling support from production. Our only criticism is that the changes did not go far enough. I will return to that point when I move on to discuss the second report.
	We also supported the later decision to adopt a dynamic hybrid. Some of the reasons that the Government gave for the decision were right: it is difficult to justify paying people in 2012 for what they did 10 years earlier, and it will be easier to move to whatever happens post-2012 if such a change is made. However, as the report rightly says, the dynamic hybrid was apparently adopted in year 1, after the Government made the decision to start the process. As several Members have said, many of the problems could have been alleviated if we had delayed the start. I am convinced that that is where the main problems began.
	As we have heard, the programme involved the extension of the scheme to massive areas of land and to many more farmers, but there was no recognition of the impact. That resulted in 48,000 extra holdings, and 360,000 extra parcels of land having to be registered. It is an odd way of weaning an industry off subsidy suddenly to give the subsidy to people who did not have it before, but that seems to be the policy that was adopted. As we have heard, the Government did not adopt the de minimis figure of 100, although that would have taken out 14,000 claimants. Indeed, I would have supported a much higher de minimis figure. As we heard, two months later, it was decidedalbeit as a result of pressurethat a third region would be added. That came on top of everything else.
	Many issues remained unresolved. Those of us who were watching events or were involved at the time were conscious of discussions on what comprised an orchard, and on fruit, vegetable and potato permits and to whom they belonged. All those problems continued while the RPA was allegedly trying to set up the necessary systems. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, on 19 January 2005, the RPA announced that payments would be delayed. It is interesting to note that the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), said a year later that
	In 200405, the RPA met all its key performance targets.[ Official Report, 2 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 452.]
	As that covered the period when the RPA said that payments would be delayed, it raises the question what performance targets it had apparently met.
	During 2005 it became increasingly clear what the problems werethe wrong maps sent to the wrong farms. Sometimes even maps from the wrong counties were sent to farmers. As others have said, fields were added to a farm that had been missed off one set of maps, and other fields were missing from the next set of maps. There was chaos, yet according to the public face of Government everything was going well. Ministers, as we have heard, especially Lord Bach, constantly criticised those of us who said that there were problems. He said that we were causing
	unfounded alarm and uncertainty in the farming community.
	As early as that same day, 19 January 2005, in the House I called for interim payments. Later that year on 9 June the then Secretary of State said that she was not ruling them out. We know the rest. The Government did not make the decision to introduce interim payments until April 2006, nearly five months into the payment window. Clearly, there were serious problems.
	I have a number of questions for the Minister about the present, but before I come to those, I want to make one point. The fundamental cause of the problems, aside from the difficulties of managing change, was that no Minister understood the industry that they were dealing with, nor, it seems, did any of the civil servants who were making decisions or giving advice to Ministers. No one seemed to realise the complexity of the dynamic hybrid and that it would take much more time. As the Secretary of State said repeatedly, they underestimated the number of new claims and the amount of land.
	Given the definition of a farmer that we heard from the Minister a few minutes ago, one wonders why those in DEFRA did not seem to understand how many thousands of people there were out there who, like the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), own a few acres of England and might therefore register and claim. It is not just people who own 5 acres. In my constituency, in the horseracing sector, all the stud farms suddenly became eligible.
	When all the problems were reported, no Minister seemed to have the gumption to go out and ask searching questions about why they were getting all those reports, or to go out to farms to look at the forms that farmers were being asked to fill in, and to see the maps that were being sent round and the chaos caused by inaccurate mapping. The Department was full of urban Ministers with no idea of the industry that they were dealing with. The situation was summed up on 2 February 2006 when, in an oral question, I said that the scheme was complicated, and the Secretary of State replied:
	The hon. Gentleman says that it is a complicated scheme, but that is misconceived.[ Official Report, 2 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 454.]
	I fear that she did not grasp the complexity of what she was doing.
	The final insult to the industry was that that Secretary of State, who was ultimately responsible for the chaos and the shambles, was promoted to Foreign Secretary. As somebody might have said, when she had done her worst, the caravan moved on.
	It is worth pointing out, as other hon. Members have, that Germany also adopted a dynamic hybrid scheme and did not face similar problems, which proves that the scheme itself was not the fundamental problem.
	In the recent supplementary estimatesthis is an estimates debatethe Department has been given 305 million, set aside to cover the costs of the debacle in the form of fines and disallowance from the EU. A recent written answer that I received used the figure of 70 million. In his response, will the Minister give us the Government's latest estimates of fines and disallowances from the EU for the years 2005 and 2006? If it is as high as the 305 million set aside, that would equate to some 8,500 police officers, which the same rural areas would very much value instead of paying fines to the EU.
	What is the up-to-date position on claims that are being reviewed? There are 20,000-odd claims for 2005 where we still do not knowand, more importantly, the individuals concerned do not knowwhether people are going to get money back or be given any more.
	On this year's payments, 75 per cent. by value by the end of March is an improvement on where we have been before, but it is still woefully inadequate for the third year of this scheme. This year, the Government, or the RPA to be more precise, demonstrated that interim payments do not necessarily delay the final paymentone of the excuses given in the past. When we look back, we find that although interim payments were paid for some months this year, once the RPA pressed the button to pay the rest of the money it all went out in about three weeks. I therefore suggest that there is nothing to stop the Government producing interim payments before Christmas this year. The National Farmers Union is calling for 80 per cent., although I believe that EU rules might restrict it to 50 per cent. Certainly, I strongly believe that an interim payment needs to be made before Christmas. That would be proof that this new team of Ministers really wants to make a change for the better.
	For 20 or probably 30 years, all political parties in this House have called for reform of the CAP, and I am afraid that much of that historical rhetoric remains when we hear about the cost to the taxpayer and increased food prices. Indeed, we heard a little of it from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins). Much of that rhetoric ignores the dramatic change of 2003the biggest change to UK agriculture policy since the introduction of guaranteed prices in 1947. That was the end of the state fixing, in one way or another, the price that farmers receive. There was a widespread belief, which was obvious in the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, North, that cutting market support would cut food prices. It is ironic that for two of the major world commoditiesgrains and milk powder, where there is now little market supportthere have been dramatic increases in world prices over the past 12 months, not because of market support but because good old traditional laws of supply and demand. It is odd, given the Vision document, that in 2003 the Government praised the mid-term review, but then said in 2005 that it needed much more reform.
	We need to understand that the CAP is as much a social policy as an economic policy. Those who founded it before we joined what was then the Common Market did so for social reasons. In negotiating the changes that we still believe are necessary, it is important that we understand where the others are coming from. The Vision document clearly failed to do that in substance and in process. Its publication, without any consultation, just two weeks before the budget summit, demonstrated a complete failure to understand the real intricacies of the CAP. I share many of the Committee's views. It was an ill-thought-out document, it was based on many out-of-date facts, it did not fully recognise the changes that had been made, and the Government had no idea how to make it work. Then there was the incredible hypocrisy of cutting the pillar two rural development money by some 400 million, while at the same time, as we understand from discussions in Brussels, losing the opportunity for a rebasing of the mechanism for spending that money.
	The Opposition's view is that the original reform is not sustainable. The budget pressures, including the transition arrangements for the new member states, mean that there will be a reduction in the single payment system by 2012. From the farming industry's perspective, it is vital that the industry can, sooner or later, hold its head up and stop for ever apologising for and justifying the need to have public money. It needs the ability to plan in the long termit cannot just turn on the tap and produce more widgets or whatever. Keeping cattle, for example, requires three or four years between an animal being born and it going into production.
	We need long-term stability, and it has to be based not just on money, which seems to be the guiding factor in the Vision document. Much more fundamentally, it is a question of what we want from our land. On that point, I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, North: it is a matter for not just rural people, but everybody in this country. More than 70 per cent. of the land in this country is farmland, and what we do with it makes a difference to everybody. There have been great changes since the 2003 review, such as the development of biofuels and the argument about food versus fuel. There has been a drought in Australia, which was the partial cause of the shortages I referred to earlier. Rising demand from India and China, as they become more prosperous, has led to a reduction in world grain stocks, which are now at their lowest level for many decades.
	Of course, there has also been increasing recognition of the importance of climate change and its many implications. It is a question of not just agriculture's contribution to climate change, but the effects of that change on agriculture. Of all the crop land in the world, 70 per cent. is at or close to sea level, and is, therefore, very susceptible to the impact of rising sea levels due to climate change. In the UK, 57 per cent. of our grade 1 land is less that 5 m above sea level. We cannot ignore that.
	The fundamental problem with the Vision document, therefore, is where it states that
	domestic production is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for food security.
	That statement should not be a surprise. At the Royal Show in 2003, DEFRA put out a statement saying
	National food security is neither necessary nor desirable.
	That approach sits ill with the Government's view on energy, about which they are rightly much more concerned, but it also ignores the changes in world supply and demand to which I referred. It ignores the issue of the carbon footprint of food, which is distinct from the issue of food miles. It ignores the environmental degradation taking place in other countries in the world in order to produce cheap food for Britain and elsewhere in Europe.
	By the phrase food security, we mean not self-sufficiency in the old-fashioned way but the capacity to produce a significant proportion of our food. That means retaining the necessary infrastructure and investment so that if the market demonstrates a shortage through the market signal of a rising price, as it is with grain and milk powder, what matters is that we have an industry to respond to such signalsif such an industry is left. That if is the Government's responsibility.
	Land has other roles apart from food production. It plays a role in producing our energy, it is the location of many of our leisure pursuits and it plays a major role in water management through flood prevention, and the retention of water in our wetlands by getting it into aquifers rather than letting it run off to sea. It plays a role in relation to the environment and biodiversity. We need a holistic approach to land management and land policies.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Paice: I am sorry; I really do not have time.
	Next year, we have the health check of the CAP. The first priority must be total decoupling throughout all countries, and in relation to all commodities. There is also no need for production controls, so we wish to see an end to set-aside; we strongly support the National Farmers Union's call that it should be reduced to zero next year. The phasing out of export subsidies needs to begin, we need to see the end of ridiculous regimes, such as the one dealing with tobacco, and we want an increase in compulsory modulation. Beyond 2012, we need to move on and ensure that support for public goods comes through the pillars that allow that to happen. That means pillar two in today's jargon of the CAP and the ability to make direct payments. If there is to be enough money in pillar two, we must increase compulsory modulation, matched by a decrease in voluntary modulation. After 2012, we believe that there is increasing justification for co-financing, which would go some way towards tackling the budget and the rebatethey rightly worry the hon. Member for Luton, North.
	A common theme has run through the two reports that we discussed tonight. It is clear that the Government have no natural feel for or understanding of land, farming or the uses of our countryside. The Committee has done the House a great service in bringing the issues to our attention.

Jonathan R Shaw: I thank hon. Members for their kind words of welcome to me in my new post. It is a privilege to have it, and I approach it enthusiastically. I look forward to the challenges ahead.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that I was Lord Rooker's spokesman on earth, but given the impression that we heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee, perhaps he was trying to be my noble Friend's spokesman on earth. It was a good impression and those of us who know my noble Friend well realise that he would have enjoyed it.
	First, let me deal with the report on the Rural Payments Agency and the implementation of the single payment scheme. Sadly, I need to begin by apologising for the delay in responding to the Select Committee's report. The Government's response was sent on Friday, but although Committee members may have had a chance to read it, I appreciate that other hon. Members will not. Of course, it has not been published yet. The problem, given the issues that the Committee's report outlined and that were discussed extensively this evening, is that they simply were not departmental matters, as the Chairman said. It was necessary to secure advice from elsewhere in Whitehall. Although that is not an excuse for breaching the normal convention of responding in two months, I hope that hon. Members appreciate that recent ministerial and machinery of government changes have diverted the attention of those responsible for the past couple of months.
	However, let me consider the substance of the report. I have come fresh to its contents and it is clear that it is a thorough piece of workI genuinely thank Committee members for their evident efforts in producing it. It reflects the feeling of the farming and rural community about the failures of the Rural Payments Agency and the single payment scheme and the effect on farmers throughout the land.
	I cannot pretend that the report made pleasant reading. Along with the National Audit Office report, which I read in preparation for the debate, it makes clear the scale and nature of the problems that the delays in implementing the scheme caused to individual farmers and the rural community generally. I am grateful to the NFU president, Peter Kendall, who arranged for me to speak to some farmers who were affected by the scheme. I understood from them exactly what those delays meant, especially the cash flow problems that they caused. I therefore add my apologies to those of other Ministers involved for the distress that has been caused by that failure.
	Clearly, lessons need to be learned. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) did not want me to say that, but I must say that it is true. We set out in the Government response some of the lessons, which a wider review of DEFRA's governance structures and its delivery bodies has taken up. The agency has taken others forward in the way in which it processes claims and communicates with its customers. In particular, the change from task working to whole-case working means that a claimant now has a named official who is responsible for their claim. A number of hon. Members raised that issue. A farmer could make a claim that could be dealt with by any number of people and in any number of the five different offices. That was simply unacceptable and a recipe for chaos.

Eric Martlew: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion, which is well deserved. He knows Carlisle well and is aware that we have a large Rural Payments Agency office there. I am sure that he would not attribute any of the blame for what has gone wrong to the people who have been making the calculations. I wonder whether he would visit the Carlisle office next time he is in the area to see how hard-working the staff are.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words. He is right. What he have heard this evening is that a complicated system was introduced at the same time as a radical change. I have read through the evidence from former Ministers and, as has been said, had they thought more clearly about the issue and had the foresight, it would perhaps have been clear that introducing such a scheme was not the right thing to do. The consequence has been the difficulties that we have seen. I pay tribute to the hard work of the staff of the Rural Payments Agency and in particular to that of Tony Cooper, the interim chief executive, who has turned the organisation around and is making a real difference to staff morale. He makes visits regularly, has welcomed the challenge and deserves our support and thanks, as do the rest of the staff.

David Taylor: We need to underline the fact that on each and every occasion, from the first visit of the rapporteurs to the signing off of the report, members of the Committee did not attribute any blame to the tattered and bloody remnants of the 3,500 staff with whom the whole process had started or to the losses that they endured. We attributed the blame to the generals who had led them into that unwinnable struggle.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend makes his point in his characteristic way.
	Senior DEFRA officials worked closely with the RPA chief executive and his team in pursuit of the objective that the Government had set out. However, responsibility for delivering the scheme and for advising Ministers on the RPA's ability to meet the timetable rested solely with the chief executive. There have been criticisms, which are highlighted in the report, about the alleged fact that there were two people at the helm and about whether that would lead to additional problems. We recognise that and we must accept those criticisms.
	Looking forward, I am afraid that there will be no quick fixes to the issues faced by the agency. However, we are seeing improvements. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reported on 2 July, it is pleasing that the agency has succeeded both in making the majority of payments earlier than last year, thereby boosting farmers' cash flow, and in meeting its formal target of making 96.14 per cent. of payments by 30 June. I reiterate my thanks to RPA staff, who have worked long and hard to make that happen.
	However, it is also clear that there needs to be further improvement in the RPA's performance before it can be said that it is again providing an acceptable level of service. The next step in achieving that will be to complete the work on the 20,000 cases from 2005, which have been referred to, where entitlement values have been identified for review and possible adjustment, upwards or downwards, to 2005 and 2006 payments. RPA resources are now being switched to that work. We look forward to seeing real progress on those cases in the coming months and we shall of course keep the House informed.

Michael Jack: The Minister is aware that his Department is planning for level cash as its income in the next comprehensive spending review round. He is also aware that a further 55 million will have to be found over the next three financial years to carry out some of the improvements to which he has adverted. Could he therefore explain to the House where that money will come from within the DEFRA budget and what the policy and reality implications are of spending more on the RPA and, by definition, less elsewhere?

Jonathan R Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman should wait for the outcome. He has levelled some detailed questions at me. I have many questions to answer, and I will do my best to do so this evening.
	The RPA has already begun to process the 106,000 or so claims that have been submitted under the 2007 single payment system. The agency's targets for 2007-08 were set out in a statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) on 26 June, and they include a target to pay 75 per cent. by value of valid 2007 SPS claims by 31 March 2008, and 90 per cent. by value of valid 2007 SPS claims by 31 May. That target represents a greater degree of challenge for the agency in the coming year, while reflecting the fact that it is still in a recovery period.
	I understand those who have called for a commitment to make partial payments in December this year. That might look like a simple matter, but there are real issues around the legal basis for such payments, the division of resources entailed in making them and the potential disallowance risks involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said in his statement, this is an issue, and we will return to it in the autumn, alongside the progress that we are making in processing those claims. I look forward to having further exchanges on that matter.
	I turn now to the Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy report. The evaluation of the CAP has taken major steps in the right direction since 2003. We believe that it still lacks a clear and justifiable long-term goal, however, and our Vision paper was designed to underpin a European farming industry that is profitable, competitive in its own right and more sustainable, and one that is rewarded for delivering genuine public good and benefits that give the developing world a chance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) said.

Tim Farron: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan R Shaw: I do not have very long; I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
	To achieve such a farming industry, the report advocates a manageable period over 10 to 15 years. Important protections should be progressively aligned with the much lower level prevailing in the rest of the economy, in relation to export subsidies. Pillar one domestic support should be phased out, leaving the CAP as a framework for safeguarding a fair regulatory trading framework. Public spending should be based solely on pillar two-type public benefits such as the environmental schemes that hon. Members have mentioned.
	I am pleased that the Committee's report supports those goals. There can be no doubt that our vision represents a radical transformation of the CAP. Such changes would free farming from the heavy market control, bureaucracy and regulation of the CAP so that it could make the most of the new opportunities provided by growing global demand. In that regard, there is a good story to tell.
	There are now 28,000 environmental stewardship agreements in place, covering nearly 4 million hectares of the country. The new rural development programme for England provides 3.9 billion over a seven-year periodmore than double the budget for the previous programmeand 3.3 billion of that will be devoted to the schemes that enhance and protect the environment. That includes transferring or modulating up to 14 per cent. of the budget from pillar one of the CAP to help to fund environmental land management schemes and providing more than 700 million of national co-financing to accompany those modulated funds.
	Our vision involves moving the farming sector forward yet further in that direction. It also has the potential to bring real savings for consumers and taxpayers, and economic benefits for society. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the CAP currently costs 1,000 a year for a family of four, and will leave the EU economy 100 billion poorer over the period from 2007 to 2013 [ Interruption. ]
	That is what we have set out in our vision. More widely, it would have significant benefits for the developing countries. Agriculture is extremely important to developing countries, accounting for 60 per cent. of employment and 25 per cent. of gross domestic producteven more for some of the poorest countries. Agricultural protection of the sort needed to support the CAP seriously distorts world markets and effectively excludes exports from many developing countries. Net welfare benefits to the developing countries from CAP reform are estimated to range between $24 billion and $43 billion annually. The Government have promoted those objectives for several years, which is in line with our ambition for farming, the environment, trade and development.
	Let me deal with some of the issues raised [Interruption.] It is a fly; the environment is bad.  [Interruption.] I have never been heckled by a fly before, but there we are. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that we had sidestepped issues and that our Vision was not visionary. Well, we were the first Government anywhere in Europe to set out a future for the common agricultural policyno Government had ever done it beforeand it has succeeded in generating debate. Previously, we had been going from one step to the next, but we were the first Government to set out a programme of radical reform. It was designed not to be a road map but to stimulate debateand that is exactly what it has done both here and in the rest of Europe. Criticism was made of the publication date. Yes, it was a riska calculated riskin order to generate debate. Criticism was also made of the research, but we used OECD statistics and we were commended by the OECD for using its data.
	During the debate on the Rural Payments Agency and the single payment scheme criticism was levelled at personalitiesboth Ministers and officials. In our response to the Select Committee, we will make it clear that we were disappointed that new territory was entered into by naming officials in that way. I understand the feelings and anger expressed on behalf of the rural community, but that was a departure from usual practice and the same rules should apply to this Government as to other Governments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire expressed concern about remapping and its impact on the 2008 scheme. It will not impact on that scheme. When we remap, we will involve all stakeholders to ensure that it is timely and that it does not cause further difficulties. We understand the concerns and we are anxious to ensure that this does not happen again.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) asked whether agriculture would survive. We think that farming has a bright future. Enormous change is happening across the world. America, for example, is developing bioethanol plants at a rate of one per week, which will have a significant impact on the amount of grain exported. Where we see the economies of China and India rising and developing, it will mean further opportunities for Britain.
	In our Vision document we set out our plans to move Britain from subsidising production to providing subsidies for environmental good. We want farming to seize the opportunities that the global world offers and we want to ensure that developing countries are able to access the markets. That is our vision for the future.
	Where I have been unable to respond to right hon. and hon. Members' points, I will write to them. I am thinking particularly of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, who speaks for the official Opposition. I apologise for being unable to respond to all his points, but I will correspond with him.
	We are clear about where we want to go in the future. If in five, 10 or 15 years' time a future Labour Government can look back on this Labour Government's achievements and say, We set out that vision and it was realisedmeaning the vision of a European farming policy in line with what the Select Committee proposedwe will both be pleased.
	 It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker  proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54( 1 ) and ( 4 ) ( Questions on voting on estimates, etc. ).

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008, for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry
	(1) further resources, not exceeding 4,098,506,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 438,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding 3,294,715,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	(1) further resources, not exceeding 3,201,338,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 438,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding 2,731,293,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.

ESTIMATES 2007-08

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2008
	(1) further resources, not exceeding 241,430,352,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services as set out in HC 438, HC 440, HC 441 and HC 448,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding 216,596,983,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services as so set out, and
	(3) limits as set out in HC 438, HC 440 and HC 441 be set on appropriations in aid.
	 Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Andy Burnham, Angela Eagle, Kitty Ussher and Jane Kennedy to prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL

Jane Kennedy accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the year ending with 31st March 2008; to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament for the service of the year ending with 31st March 2008; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 141].

COMMITTEES

Administration

Ordered,
	That Mr Bob Ainsworth and Mr Andrew Robathan be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr Nicholas Brown and Mr John Randall be added.

Transport

Ordered,
	That Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson be discharged from the Transport Committee and David Simpson be added.

Environmental Audit

Ordered,
	That Tim Farron and David Howarth be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Jo Swinson and Martin Horwood be added. [Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection]

COASTAL ACCESS (ENGLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mark Tami.]

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am extremely grateful for the chance to debate this matter, albeit briefly. I see that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner)who, as the former Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is responsible for much of the legislation to which I shall referis now leaving the Chamber.
	I represent a constituency with a stunning coastline. We have rocks, cliff faces, secluded coves, sandy beaches and a whole lot of history. There are breathtaking views and wildlife galore. On the coastline of Bridgwater and west Somerset, it is possible to marvel at all the greater wonders of nature. It is no accident that Samuel Taylor Coleridge chose the little port of Watchet in west Somerset from which to gaze out at the wider reaches of the Bristol channel and compose these famous lines: I must go down to the sea again, to the lonely sea and the sky, And all I need is a tall ship and a star to steer her by. But if poor old Coleridge were alive today he might have found it a little more difficult, with the whole effort riddled with mindless political correctness. The result would also have been rather harder to scan: And all I need is a five-year strategy, a report from Natural England, and a huge consultation document to steer her by. I am afraid that that does not have quite the same ring to it.
	Coleridge, as a great man, did not have all this trouble with coastal access. In truth, very few people do. It is not an issue that exercises the hearts and minds of my constituentsit never hasand I doubt that the Minister's postbag is crammed with letters about it either. Yes, there are probably a handful of super-keen explorers who want to leg it up every cliff and sniff every bit of fresh air, but the fact is that there is no overwhelming demand for unrestricted coastal access. That is because there is already plenty of access, as the Minister is well aware: 70 per cent. of the coastline of Great Britain is open, with unrestricted access owing to some form of legal right or formal agreement. Of the remainder, 10 per cent. is owned by the Ministry of Defence, which likes to let off rather large rockets and test things that go bang. I suggest that only masochists of a certain kind would want to have access to an MOD siteas someone who used to be in the MOD, I certainly would not want to walk on the wrong end of such a rocket. Therefore, discussions about extending coastline access would concern only a small proportion of coastal land.
	We must not ignore the views of the people who want complete access to everythingaccess to everywhere at all times. If they hold that view, that is fine. However, my argument is that we must examine and take into account the genuine extent of the pressure for change. How much real demand is there for coastal access? The available evidence suggests that there is no great demand. The Government asked Natural England to examine the case in detail, and it commissioned in-depth independent research. The Minister knows that we have been in this situation before in respect of the original proposals. The Government rightly withdrew them and proposed that there should be a consultation period, and I accept that. Most people questioned believed that there were automatic rights to coastal access. Interestingly, most people did not therefore regard access as an issue because there was thought to be such an automatic right.
	The Country Land and Business Association ordered research of its own, and 74 per cent. of those interviewed thought that there was already enough access to the coastline. I suspect that that is a lower proportion than it should be, but I am prepared to take that up with the association. However, it is a fact that trips to the English seaside have declined by almost a half within a few years, partly because of the delights of easyJet and cheap flights overseas. My point is not partisan; it is that the nature of democracy is that public pressurethe voice of the peoplehelps to dictate change. There is a big coastline in my constituency, and I am unconvinced that the clamour for change in this case is sufficiently loud.
	There was a small pledge in the Labour manifesto to give
	early priority to take action to improve access to the coast.
	I do not intend to disrespect anyone, but apart from anoraks, who reads our party manifestos? That was not much of a commitment in any case; it was carefully worded and it did not promise specific legislationit was an aspiration. It did not say that a Labour Government would fix things fastand credit is due to the Government as that has not been done quicklyand it did not say how and when it would be fixed. The former Prime Minister and right hon. Member for Sedgefield did not go around the nation crying, Coastal access, coastal access, coastal access. So how did this situation come about?
	Seven years ago, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was passed under the guidance of the current Minister for the South West, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). It was a political minefield at the time, and the Government recognised that dealing with the coast would probably prove to be particularly difficult because of vested interests. The organisations involved would include the MOD and nuclear power stations.
	When someone does not know what to do, they ask someone else to tell them. The Government asked Natural England to examine the arguments and make recommendations. The beauty of asking someone else to look at such a situation first is that the person who asks can say that they have done exactly what they said they would do without actually doing anythingit kicks the issue into the long grass for a long time.
	Natural England eventually concluded that coastal access was a complicated matter that might require another chunkhorrible wordof law. A problem therefore arises. Does DEFRA want a new slice of legislation on its plate? I would like to think not, and I will explain why. Where should the law fit?
	A maritime Bill has also been proposed. That is great; I have no problems with that. Presumably, that would deal with the beaches, mudflats and estuaries. Or would it? I would be fascinated to hear the Minister's opinion on that because it is an area that will impinge on our approach to the issue. I suspect that we should all be very cautious. It is a perfect approach to a political problem: if Ministers do not like the solution provided by the very people they asked to find one in the first place, the classic method of delay is to put the whole thing out for consultation again. That is what has been done. I am not saying that that is wrong, but that is what has happened.
	One produces, hey presto, a huge consultation document and seeks the opinions of the world and his wife. That is exactly what has happened in the past month. Right now, we are in the middle of an exhaustive programme of consultation and people have until 11 September to say what they think. The chances are that the world and his wife probably will not get involved for the reasons that I have already described. Most people do not describe coastal access as an issue. They think about it if it is put to them, but they do not think of it as a problem.
	However, the Minister will not be short of opinions because the consultation process deliberately included every Tom, Dick and Harry that could be thought of. I dread to think what this rather large and woolly-minded piece of buck-passing will cost us. I also have some concerns about the vast list of organisations that have been consulted by DEFRA as part of the consultation. I see that the Minister smiles wrylyI certainly did when I read the list. Why, for example, does the Bracknell district branch of Friends of the Earth get a mention? My geography is fairly badI failed it at A- levelbut I was under the impression that Bracknell in Berkshire is landlocked. Why have all the London councils been specifically consulted? No doubt Comrade Ken likes to dangle his left toe in the sea at Southend from time to time, but so what? Why does the Minister want to hear from the National Council for Metal Detecting or the Kaolin and Ball Clay Association? Perhaps the kaolin and morphine association, if it existed, would have been more appropriate. No doubt the Outdoor Writers and Photographers Guild has a valid point of view, although I doubt that it devotes very much time to debating coastal access. Nor does the Kennel Club, yet it too is on the list of 3,000 official consultees. It is woofers to me!
	I have no desire to labour the point, but my two district councils of Somerset and Sedgemore do not get an individual mention in the list, but the Gay Outdoor Club has been consulted. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but why is it so? The Cruising Association has also been consultedI trust that the two are not connected.
	Consultation is a wonderful idea, but it is pointless if we go out of our way to ask every single pressure group for its input. It may generate lots of summer reading for hundreds of DEFRA civil servants, but they should have better things to do, such as sorting out the Rural Payments Agency, which we have just debated. It will certainly involve the destruction of forests of trees to produce the paper on which the submissions are made.
	Most of all, I question whether the consultation is relevant. It could become, in my humble opinion, a cop-out. Governments get elected to make decisions. This is a potential decision that has not been demanded by a vast groundswell of public opinion. In fact and in truth, the contrary is probably true. After the battles of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, does it make sense to have legislation for a national scheme when the best answer is sensible local agreements?
	I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) is in his place. Dare I say that he may be another member of the Cruising Association?
	I have been discussing these matters with responsible Ministers since 2001. I have been impressed by assurances that ministerial minds are not set on new law just for the sake of it, so I want to underline a few real local concerns that affect my bit of coastline. My coastline is open, except for one or two points, but who will maintain the paths when they have been built? Who will maintain the fences and the gates? Who will be responsible should a walker's dog leave the path and kill a sheep? If it happens at present, there is a set procedure; but if there is new legislation, I presume that it will be the responsibility of the Government.
	There is a beautiful site of special scientific interestor SSSIin my constituency called Steart point, and I commend a visit to the Minister; I know that many of his predecessors visited. But it would be in the middle of a coastal access point, and that debate has been had with Natural England. There is no clear way around that. Somebody needs to make a decision.
	I have a nuclear power station at Hinckley Point. The Government are debating building perhaps one or two new power stations there. It is slap-bang on the coast, for obvious reasons, and nobodyespecially in these days of terrorist threatswants to provide unrestricted access. We cannot and must not do it. There have to be exceptions, and the best thing is to let the locals make the decisions.
	There is a steep hill by Minehead called North hill. It is not cordoned off; there is no barbed wire. West Somerset district council does not actively encourage people to go climbing. But with unrestricted access, the council might have to fence off a special walkway and then would become legally liable for every tiny tumble. It is a long drop to the beach, hundreds of feet. I do not want Minehead to turn into Beachy head, thank you very much. I do not want accidents, incidents or stupid decisions.
	What do we do about estuaries? The Minister will know that I have a strangely named river that runs through Bridgwater in the heart of my constituency, the Parrett; nothing to do with Monty Python. But if the Government allow access, one will be able to walk from Steer point into Bridgwater; it is an estuary, tidal and open. But that is not the way to have coastal access. We would have to demand access to areas that, at the moment, are flood defences, or part of a canal system, or part of a dock system, or have industrial sites on both sides.
	Unrestricted access looks good on paper. A law covering the whole coastline may seem like a simple solution, but the moment we centralise the process and put it on the statute book, we lose the one thing we need: the common sense to make decisions locally. Common sense must surely dictate the exceptions to coastal access.
	We cannot have well-meaning ramblersI am talking about ramblers in the loosest senseclambering right next to power stations, especially nuclear ones. We do not want people drowning themselves in dangerous tidal estuaries; I have the second-highest tidal flow in the world. We need to keep people and vulnerable birds or wildlife apart; they do not always mix. We should not disrupt the delicate cycle of agriculture either, especially after what we have heard in the previous debate.
	The answer to all these problems lies not in new law, but in sensible local agreements, brokered and managed preferably by responsible district councils or unitaries. I hope that the Minister has listened with care to my speech. I welcome him to his post and I will listen carefully to his response.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) presents his arguments in his usual way, with grace and unique humour. It is nice to see my neighbour, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) here. I do not know whether he is cruising behind the hon. Member for Bridgwater or woofing behind himbut I am sure that he is just supporting him.
	I would like to answer some of the important points that the hon. Gentleman has made, which are particularly relevant to his part of the world. It is quite right for him to present his arguments as he does. He has been consistent on this subject, and has tabled many parliamentary questions of which I have had sight.
	Estuaries are very important. Natural England's report noted that estuaries within the English coast range in size from the Severn, the Humber and the Thames down to small tidal rivers only a few metres wide. People in counties with a lot of estuary environment, such as Suffolk, regard them as an integral part of the coastal experience. Under Natural England's recommendations, access probably would extend to the first permanent crossing point on foot, which is taken to include bridges and year-round ferries, as the most appropriate place to define the extent of the estuary.
	I recognise that estuaries throw up particular challenges, and the hon. Gentleman raised some earlier. They include the importance of wildlife habitats and nature conservation. We shall welcome views about estuaries as part of our consultation exercise.
	The hon. Gentleman asked who would maintain access structures, such as gates and fences. Natural England will provide funding to maintain structures required for access. He also asked why the Kennel Club, the Cruising Association and all sorts of other people, including my friend the esteemed Mayor of London, were consulted. The answer is that we were following the rules: Cabinet Office guidance was that the consultation information should be sent to those who asked to be included. I hope that that answer is satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman: It's the rules, sir.
	I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the coastal access proposals. I know that he has seen the recommendations, so I hope that his earlier concerns have been allayed. He knows of the importance of the south-west coast path, especially the recently opened west Somerset coast path, for his constituents and the local community in terms of recreation and business. He described the wonderful views from the path. I am sure they are indeed wonderful, and I thank him for his generous invitation to visit his part of the world. I hope that I can manage to do so. Research in 2005 indicated that the path generated about 307 million a yearan enormous sum, which is important for the regional economy.
	Before I talk about coastal access, I shall look back at the major successes of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which are relevant to the debate. The Act gave a right of access to 750,000 hectares of mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land that had not previously been open to the public. The Government are proud of that achievement.
	The proposals were in our manifesto. It is not just anoraks who read about access to the countryside and to our coastal paths. Ramblers and non-governmental organisations constantly scrutinise the manifestos that Governments have to implement when elected. Access to the countryside is in the very marrow of my being as a member of the Labour party: a Labour Government created the national parks, and I am honoured to be the Minister for them. We wear anoraks when we go into the countryside in inclement weather, but we are not anoraks in the sense that the hon. Gentleman describes. I realise that he was joking, but I wanted to make the point that we had achieved an important piece of social legislation, which ensures that more of the country's most beautiful landscapes can now be enjoyed by the many rather than remaining the preserve of the few.
	The Act balances the interests of users and landowners while ensuring that wildlife and the environment are protected. When we introduced the Bill, there were of course all manner of dire prophecies about how life as we knew it would come to an end. As Private Fraser of Dad's Army would have said, We're all doomed. I was reminded of those prophets of doom when I read an article in  The Independent, which noted that in another place the Act was called an
	attack on property and rights of ownership.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2000; Vol. 614, c. 724.]
	There were warnings that it would increase drug parties, devil worship and supermarket trolleys in the wild parts of Britainthe hon. Gentleman will note that I am adding to the colour and flavour of his speech.
	Happily, and not surprisingly, none of those fears was realised. In fact, access has worked out rather well on the ground. People want to access the countryside, secure in the knowledge that they have a clear right to use those areas. They have shown that they can exercise those rights responsibly. Landowners have had to resort to formal restrictions in far fewer cases than expected, and have simply relied on informal management techniques.
	The desire to create clear public rights over land has been a strong political and social theme in the past century, as is shown in my party's belief in access to the countryside. The recent successful celebrations of the 75th anniversary of the Kinder Scout trespass indicate that access is wanted and can be introduced for the benefit of all. So to those, such as the hon. Gentleman, who approach this debate about coastal access with questions such as, Where's the public demand for it? or, How can it be right to impose public rights over people's land?, I suggest politely that that is missing the point: it is not unreasonable for an island race to have access to its own coastline.
	The coast is enormously popularfor beach activities and wider forms of recreation, for enjoying nature or scenery and for walking. In 2005 there were 72 million trips to the undeveloped coast and 174 million to seaside towns. Natural England has estimated that 30 per cent. of the English coast lacks any secure access rights for the public, and a further 20 per cent. has a jumble of different access rights that fail to join up properly. That can create an unpleasant, and indeed unsafe, experience. There are places that are physically unsuitable because of erosion, slumping ground or a lack of infrastructure, such as bridges or steps.
	People do not have the right to go along the whole coast. We must change that; we made a manifesto commitment to do so, and it is something that we will tackle. The Government have already set out a vision of a coastal environment where rights to walk along the length of the English coast lie within a wildlife and landscape corridor that offers enjoyment, an understanding of the natural environment and a high-quality experience managed sustainably in the context of a changing coastline.
	We want to secure three complementary outcomes: first, secure access along the length of the English coastline, accepting that that might be subject to some exceptions, a point that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome; secondly, a more accessible coastline, by creating physical routes to access the coast from inland and by encouraging more people to enjoy the coast; and thirdly, improvements for coastal wildlife and the landscape, as well as encouraging people to enjoy and understand that environment.
	In 2005, the Government asked the Countryside Agency, together with English Nature and the Rural Development Service, to consider how best to improve access to the English coast. In October 2006, those bodies came together to form Natural England, and at the end of February this year, Natural England provided advice to the Government.
	Natural England has undertaken a thorough programme of research and investigation into the situation on the coast. That has included the collection and analysis of coastal data, and an investigation into coastal land types and the way to deliver access. It has investigated access in four different study areas, one of which included the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	Natural England initially considered three options, but as we know, it has moved to a fourth legislative option. It has recommended that the Government introduce such legislation, and we shall consider that as we go forward. Natural England's detailed recommendations are set out in its report and reproduced again in our consultation paper. If they were adopted, what would that mean? Local authorities would be fully involved in the process of identifying coastal access land. Local circumstances would be a key consideration, and local interests, including land managers and the local access forums, would be involved.
	It would be Natural England's intention to concentrate its efforts on fixing what is broken. Where existing access is secure and works well, with appropriate spreading room along the way, there would be nothing to fix. The whole process would be conducted in accordance with a statutory methodology approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State. The methodology would set out in more detail the approach to be taken in identifying access land around the coast.
	Where particular sections of access corridor are prone to erosion, it is proposed that the legislation would enable the rights to be rolled back automatically with any erosion that occurred in the future. Through consultation, it would be possible to provide appropriate detours to avoid obstacles such as coastal developments and to ensure that there is no adverse impact on key nature sitesanother issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. I am confident that the needs of wildlife can be fully taken into account within the process.
	We have said that we are particularly interested in Natural England's recommendation about creating in new legislation a coastal access corridor. We are having a detailed look at how that option might work, but we are interested in views on all the options before us. It is vital that we get the right approach to coastal accessone that balances the interests of users and landowners in the same way as the right of access to open countryside, and one that protects the rich and unique landscape and wildlife of our beautiful coastline, but allows people to get involved. If people share their expertise with us, it will help us to shape the way forward. The English coast provides an ideal place for people to engage with the natural world and the marvels and wonders of the marine environment, in the colourful way that the hon. Gentleman described in the context of his constituency. That is true the length and breadth of England. We have a commitment to improve access and a vision of how we wish to achieve thatand we intend to meet those aims.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.